geotechnical design report - bidnet

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT New York State Thruway Authority - Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over

Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159

Submitted to:

Creighton Manning Engineering LLP 2 Winners Circle

Albany, NY 12205

Submitted by:

Golder Associates Inc.

670 North Commercial Street, Suite 103

Manchester, NH 03101

+1 603 668-0880

18104049

October 2018, Revised February 2019

October 2018, Revised February 21, 2019 18104049

i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR THIS EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 4

3.1 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Geotechnical Investigation ................................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Laboratory Testing Program ................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Generalized Soil and Bedrock Conditions ........................................................................................... 7

5.0 WALL REMEDIATION EVALUATIONS ......................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Replacement Wall Design Considerations and Assumptions .............................................................. 9

5.2 Remediation Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 10

5.2.1 Repair Existing Wall – Deadman Anchors .................................................................................... 10

5.2.2 Repair Existing Wall – Soil Nail Reinforcement ............................................................................ 11

5.2.3 Repair Existing Wall – Tieback Anchors ....................................................................................... 11

5.2.4 New Sheetpile Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks) ............................................... 12

5.2.5 New Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks) ....................... 13

5.3 Alternative Selection .......................................................................................................................... 14

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 14

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 14

6.2 Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................... 15

6.3 Earth Pressures.................................................................................................................................. 16

6.4 Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis ..................................................................................................... 17

6.5 Soldier Pile Axial Capacity ................................................................................................................. 19

6.6 Global Stability ................................................................................................................................... 19


ii

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 22

7.1 Preliminary Quantity and Opinion of Construction Cost .................................................................... 22

7.2 Construction Surcharges .................................................................................................................... 23

7.3 Fiber Optic Cable ............................................................................................................................... 24

7.4 Permanent Lagging ............................................................................................................................ 24

7.5 Soldier Pile Survey Monitoring During Construction .......................................................................... 24

7.6 Construction Observations ................................................................................................................. 24

8.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 25

TABLES

Table 1 -- Laboratory Testing Assignment Summary (Embedded in Text – Page 5) Table 2 – Summary of Soil and Rock Laboratory Testing Results Table 3 – Global Stability Summary (Embedded in Text – Page 20)

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan Figure 3 – Interpreted Subsurface Profile A-A’ Figure 4 – Interpreted Subsurface Profile B-B’ Figure 5 – Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Plan and Profile Figure 6 – Soldier Pile and Tieback Anchor Detail Figure 7 – Tieback with Double Corrosion Protection Detail

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Boring Logs Appendix B – Rock Core Photos Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results Appendix D – Calculations


3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) presents the findings and recommendations of Golder Associates Inc.’s

(Golder’s) geotechnical investigation and design evaluations to stabilize the southeast approach of the Catskill

Creek Bridge located at (MP) 113.22 of Interstate 87 along the New York State Thruway in Catskill, New York

(See Figure 1). Creighton-Manning Engineering, LLP (C-M) was retained by the New York State Thruway

Authority (NYSTA) to design a replacement retaining wall system, and C-M subcontracted Golder to complete the

subsurface/site investigation and geotechnical aspects of the design. During the course of the work C-M and

Golder worked together to collect field data, develop design parameters, and evaluate design alternatives to

present to the NYSTA.

The focus of this GDR is to present the geotechnical data evaluated for the project, provide a summary of

Golder’s evaluations, and provide recommendations for design and construction of the selected retaining wall

replacement alternative. The GDR includes test boring logs, interpreted subsurface profiles, a description of

subsurface conditions, a discussion of Golder’s alternative analysis that considered options to rehabilitate the

existing wall and to construct a new permanent wall, a discussion of preliminary analyses performed for

alternative wall systems, and design and construction recommendations for the selected replacement wall

alternative.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Catskill Creek Bridge (the Bridge) is a 600-foot long steel truss arch bridge with 89-foot long and 69-foot long

southern and northern approach spans, respectively, that crosses Catskill Creek at approximately Mile Post

113.22 of the New York State Thruway. The Bridge carries four lanes of the roadway and respective shoulder

lanes for both northbound and southbound traffic. The Bridge trusses are set on four large concrete piers

socketed into bedrock. The piers are staggered and do not lie within the streambed. The bridge was designed in

1952 and constructed in 1953 (Contract CT 53-1). The northern and southern abutments are supported on

shallow foundations bearing on rock. The bridge truss is supported on eight piers each having two footings

socketed 1 to 6 feet (ft) into bedrock. In 1984, a gabion wall that extended out from the original southeast

concrete wingwall was constructed to help stabilize the slope (Contract TAA 84-1B, sheet 29). In 1992, the

NYSTA conducted a bridge rehabilitation program which included the addition of an 80 foot long, 15 foot high

(exposed height) cantilever soldier pile and lagging wall to the southeast approach of the southern abutment, and

a flattening of the existing rockfill embankment slope in front of the wall from 1H:1V to 1.5H:1V (Contract TAA 92-

24B). The 1992 rehabilitation as-built plan sheets 31 and 42 for TAA 92-24B1 and concrete lagging shop drawing2

indicated that the wall includes HP14x89 soldier piles spaced 6 ft on-center with reinforced precast concrete

lagging (2’9” high x 5’8” long x 6” thick). The minimum design embedment depth for the soldier piles was 20 ft

which correlates to a pile tip elevation roughly 10 to 20 ft above the interpreted bedrock surface.

Regional catastrophic flooding occurred in the region on August 28 and September 8, 2011 from Hurricane Irene

and Tropical Storm Lee, respectively. Based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauging data,

the water level in Catskill Creek rose at least 22 ft during flooding from Irene. Following these events, NYSTA

personnel inspected the Bridge foundations, and discovered recent scour of embankment fill, rip-rap and other

soils surrounding the piers north and south of the streambed. The scour included loss of rip-rap and soils

1 New York State Thruway Authority design drawing package titled “Bridge Rehabilitation, Milepost 113.22+/-,” drawing numbers 31 & 42,

dated December 1991. 2 The Fort Miller Co. TAA 92-24B Milepost #113.22 – Precast Concrete Lagging Panels, dated 10/28/92.


4

adjacent to the east footing of Pier 3 on the south side of the northbound truss. Additional slope failures

evidenced by tension cracks were surveyed in the fall of 2011, including a tension crack in the slope surface at

the toe of the lagging wall, exposing an underground fiber optic line and junction box. In the fall of 2011 the

NYSTA and Golder designed emergency slope repairs consisting of slope regrading and rip-rap armor partially

anchored in place using rock dowels and pinned steel mesh. The design considerations and recommended

remedial approach was documented in Golder’s December 2011 Emergency Slope Stabilization Report3. The

slope repairs were conducted in winter and spring 2012. The NYSTA is concerned that additional slope

movements are causing distress to the existing lagging wall as it was not designed with tiebacks and the piles do

not extend into bedrock. This geotechnical investigation and design report were prepared based on the NYSTA’s

desire to rehabilitate the wall by either repairing the existing wall to a stable condition or to replace the existing

wall with a new permanent wall.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR THIS EVALUATION

3.1 Site Visit

On August 7, 2018, Golder conducted a site visit to mark out borehole locations for utility clearance, meet with a

representative of C-M to review topographic and site civil surveying needs, and to map bedrock and slope

conditions. During the site visit, we mapped four (4) scarps within the upper slope below the exposed base of the

existing soldier pile and lagging retaining wall; and staked 13 bedrock exposures in the site area for survey. We

also took site condition photographs to document current conditions and took notes on the condition of the

existing retaining wall, southeast wing wall and general roadway and south abutment conditions, including site

access.

3.2 Existing Site Conditions

The wall currently shows signs of movement evident by soldier pile/lagging lateral deflection up to 5-6 inches to

the east (estimated mid-wall using a tape measure), and asphalt patching around the concrete wall cap. The

return wall, which connects the retaining wall to the abutment wall, has separated from the southeast abutment by

approximately 2.25 inches, and the cap of the return wall is cracked. The exposed portions of the piles show

signs of corrosion. There is also concrete spalling on the concrete wall cap and abutment wall, exposing rebar.

As noted above, several headscarps are visible on the soil slope surface below the retaining wall (surveyed scarp

locations are shown on Figure 2) indicating past slope displacements and existing factors of safety approaching

one. Past surficial slope failures have left portions of the fiber optic line exposed in front of the wall.

The rip rap and wire mesh of the 2012 slope repairs appear to be intact, but these repairs were limited to the

slope toe and mid-slope area between the northern end of the wall and Pier 3 of the bridge. The repair did not

extend along the toe of slope below and in front of the lagging wall. One scarp area in fill materials below the wall

first observed in October 2011 appeared to have increased in size.

3.3 Geotechnical Investigation

On August 13 to 21, 2018, Earth Dimensions Inc. of Elma, New York drilled four borings (DNW-1, DNW-2, DNW-

3, and DNW-4). Boring locations were surveyed by C-M prior to the start of the drilling program, and as there was

3 Golder Associates, Inc. “Summary Report – Emergency Slope Stabilization at MP 113.22, Thruway Over Catskill Creek,” NYSTA Project D213954, submitted to NYSTA on December 19, 2011.


5

no drilling deviation from these locations they also represent the as-drilled locations. The locations are shown on

Figure 2 and the elevations are included on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Both Golder and Earth Dimensions classified soils in the field and collected samples for visual identification and

laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling was conducted at 5-foot intervals through the

overburden. Standard 2-inch O.D. split spoons were driven 24 inches by a 140 pound safety hammer dropped 30

inches using a rope and cathead. Golder recorded sample recovery lengths, lithologic descriptions, and the

number of hammer blows required to advance the sampler at 6-inch increments. A hammer efficiency factor of

0.60 was assumed for the safety hammer and cathead drilling method which requires no correction for the

standard N60 values. Drill behavior during casing and drill rod advancement and cuttings observed during drilling

were also recorded. Golder collected soil samples from each SPT split spoon for visual identification and

laboratory testing. Soils were field classified in general accordance with the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design

Manual – Chapter 5, Soil and Rock Classification and Logging. After reaching bedrock refusal, Earth Dimensions

obtained approximately 10 to 20 feet of NQ2 sized bedrock core from each of the borings. Rock core was field

logged in general accordance with the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual – Chapter 5, Soil and Rock

Classification and Logging. Borings DNW-2, 3, and 4 were backfilled with cuttings and crushed stone fill to 1.3

feet, then patched with concrete at the ground surface. A 2-inch PVC standpipe piezometer was installed in

DNW-1 to 57.5 feet. Piezometer installation included 15 feet of screen (10 feet in bedrock and 5 feet in the

overburden soils). The screen was backfilled with sand and a bentonite seal was placed above the sand pack

followed by grout and crushed stone mixed with cuttings to 1 ft. An 8-inch diameter flush-mounted roadbox was

installed at the surface. During grouting operations, Golder noted potential grout loss within the stone rockfill, and

the driller noted additional water loss within the formation during drilling operations.

Details of the sampling methods used, field data obtained, and soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions

encountered are presented on the attached boring logs included in Appendix A. Photographs of the rock core are

included in Appendix B.

3.4 Laboratory Testing Program

Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on representative soil and rock samples collected during the

subsurface investigation to assist in soil classification and to assess soil and rock engineering properties. Testing

was performed on samples collected from all four borings.

Testing on the selected soil and rock samples was conducted by 3rd Rock LLC of East Aurora, New York and

GeoTesting Express of Acton, Massachusetts. Laboratory work was performed in accordance with applicable

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) testing procedures. Testing performed for the investigation is

summarized below.

Table 1: Laboratory Testing Assignment Summary

Laboratory Test Testing Procedure Number of Tests Completed

Particle Size Analysis (Sieve only) ASTM D422 12

Moisture Content ASTM D2216 43

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli (Rock) Method C

ASTM D7012 8


6

Selected soil and rock testing results are included on the boring logs in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2.

Complete laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix C.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Geologic Setting

Regional geologic mapping indicates the site bedrock, from Catskill Creek to the south abutment, consists of

limestones of the Lower Devonian-aged Helderberg Group.4 5 These rocks were previously mapped as the

Lower Devonian Kalkberg Limestone, Catskill Shaly Limestone, Becraft Limestone, Port Ewen/Alsen Limestone,

and Glenerie Limestone.6 Local mapping revised this series as the Coeymans/Manlius, Kalkberg, New Scotland,

and Becraft Formations, which have been deformed by broad open folding and subject to low angle thrust faults.7

This more recent mapping indicates the south abutment lies on the Becraft and possibly the overlying Alsen/Port

Ewen/Glenerie formations. The lower part of the Becraft is described as a pinkish gray, wavy bedded, medium to

coarse grained grainstone, with beds 4 to 12 inches thick, separated by thin greenish-gray shale. The upper part

of the Becraft lacks the shale layers and is thicker bedded. The Becraft is about 60 ft thick in the Catskill area.8

The Alsen/Port Ewen formations consist of fine grained, dark gray, argillaceous lime wackestone and limy shale

with layers or nodules of black chert. The Alsen/Port Ewen formations are about 35 ft thick in the Catskill area.

The Glenerie Formation overlies the Port Ewen and consists of black or dark gray hard cherty limestone.9 The

Esopus Shale overlies the Port Ewen, and consists of a friable, gravelly-crumbling mass of uniform, barren, dark

gray shale and siltstone, about 250 to 300 ft thick, with a well-developed closely-spaced slaty cleavage.6,9

The field descriptions of bedrock exposures located about 50 feet (ft) west of the southbound lanes of the south

abutment and at El. ~150 are as follows: Medium gray (fresh) to tan-buff (weathered), thin to thick bedded (2 to

12 inches to massive), very strong (ISRM rating of R5, estimated compressive strength 15,000 to 36,000 psi),

very coarse grained, crinoidal grainstone (limestone), with brachiopods to 1.5 inches. Bedding dips gently (8°) to

the west, and bedding discontinuities are planar and rough. At least two near vertical conjugate joint sets cross

the bedding, oriented roughly northwest-southeast, and northeast-southwest. The joints are planar, rough to very

rough, have persistences of 5 ft to 50+ ft, and are close to widely spaced (0.5 to 2 ft). This lithology is consistent

with the upper part of the Becraft Formation.

The field descriptions of the bedrock exposed beneath the south end of the bridge at the toe of the shale fill at El.

~105 are as follows: Dull medium gray (fresh and weathered), thin to medium bedded (1 to 5 inches), hard to

very hard (ISRM rating of R4 to R5, estimated compressive strength of 7,000 to 36,000), fine to very fine grained

impure limestone, with abundant brachiopods to 2 inches diameter, and thin (1 to 2 inches) coquina beds

consisting mostly of brachiopods. Bedding dips gently (12°) to the north, and bedding discontinuities are planar

4 Fisher, D.W., Isachsen, Y.W., Rickard, L.V., 1970. Geologic Map of New York: Hudson –Mohawk Sheet, State Museum of New York, scale

1:250,000, reprinted 1995. 5 Raytheon Infrastructure Services Inc., January 1996. Study Report, Catskill Creek, Milepost 113.22 in New York State Thruway. 6 Chadwick, G.H., 1944. Geology of the Catskill and Kaaterskill Quadrangles, Part II Silurian and Devonian Geology, with a Chapter on Glacial

Geology, New York State Museum Bulletin No. 336, June 1944, 275 p. 7 Marshak, S. and Engelder, T., 1987. Exposures of the Hudson Valley Fold-Thrust Belt, west of Catskill, New York. Field Trip No. 28,

Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide – Northeast Section, p. 123-128. 8 Rickard, L.V., 1962. Late Cayugan (Upper Silurian) and Helderbergian (Lower Devonian) Stratigraphy in New York. New York State Museum

and Science Service, Bulletin No. 386, 168 p. 9 Marshak, S., 1990. Structural Geology of Silurian and Devonian Strata in the Mid-Hudson Valley, New York: Fold-Thrust Belt Tectonics in

Minature. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 41, 76 p.


7

and very rough. At least two near vertical joint sets cross the bedding, oriented roughly northwest-southeast, and

northeast-southwest. The joints are planar, smooth to very rough, have persistences up to 10 ft, and are close to

moderately spaced (0.5 to 1 ft). This lithology is consistent with the lower part of the Becraft Formation.

Regional surficial geologic mapping indicates glacial sediments beneath the south side of Catskill Creek consist of

glacial till, consisting of a poorly sorted clay, silt, sand and boulders, overlying bedrock.10 Glacial striae occur on

limestone bedding surfaces, and potholes are common within the river bed. The mapping also indicates

glaciolacustrine laminated silts and clays overlying the glacial till and bedrock are present west of the site area in

upland areas at elevations higher than the site but are remnant glacial lake bottom sediments that have been

mostly eroded away. Glaciolacustrine delta stratified fine gravel and sand, and more recent deposits of alluvial

silt, sand and gravel lie within the Catskill Creek stream valley northwest and southeast of the site, and Kaaterskill

Creek south of the site.

4.2 Generalized Soil and Bedrock Conditions

Soil Conditions

Soils encountered in the borings were found to generally include asphalt and rockfill material placed during

construction of the roadway and bridge abutments overlying naturally occurring glacial till sediments. The

underlying bedrock surface in the site area is interpreted to slope down to the north and east as shown on the

interpreted bedrock surface contours on Figure 2, At the boring locations within the wall replacement area, the

bedrock surface is interpreted to range from about 45 to 56 ft below the road grade, sloping down to the north as

shown on the attached interpreted subsurface profiles in Figures 3 and 4. Detailed descriptions of the soil and

bedrock conditions encountered at the borings are provided on the attached boring logs. The following sections

summarize the major stratigraphic units.

Asphalt Pavement

Asphalt pavement ranging from approximately 1 to 1.3 feet thick was encountered in each of the borings.

Rockfill

Weathered shale sandy gravel rockfill material ranging in thickness from approximately 38 to 45 ft was

encountered directly beneath the asphalt pavement at the boring locations. SPT N-values in the rockfill material

ranged from 12 to 129 with an average of 44, indicating a generally compact consistency. The lower blow counts

(i.e. N < 20) were only observed at six of the rockfill sample intervals and were generally scattered throughout the

deposit; there does not appear to be a consistently weak stratum across each borehole. Laboratory testing

showed this layer had an average moisture content of 4% and was composed gravel with an average of 13%

fines and 24% sand, indicating this layer is not a typical “rockfill”. The rockfill material can generally be described

as a gray to brown, dry, non-plastic, compact, sandy gravel with little fines. During piezometer installation, there

was significant grout loss within this stratum indicating this layer has high permeability.

We suspect that the source of the rockfill materials used in the south abutment construction (~1953) was a rock

cut about 1,500 ft southwest of the abutment. This rock cut is mapped as occurring within the Esopus Shale in

the local geologic maps. The rockfill materials on the slope surface beneath and west of the abutment indicate a

lithology consistent with the Esopus, specifically a friable, weak, dark gray, silty shale, with very closely spaced

10 Caldwell, D.H., Dineen, R.J., Connally, G.G., Fleisher, P.J. and Rich, J.L., 1991, Surficial geologic map of New York: Hudson - Mohawk

sheet: New York State Museum, Map and Chart Series 40, scale 1:250,000.


8

cleavage, weathering into elongated shards 1 to 2 inches long and about ½ inch thick that generate a coarse

gravel. The fill materials contained semi-intact rock blocks of the shale (typically 1 to 2 ft in diameter), that easily

crumble (ISRM rating of R1, estimated compressive strength 150 to 725 psi). The presence of the semi-intact

rock blocks indicate the fill materials were likely not processed prior to placement, and are likely responsible for

the random, higher N-values encountered during drilling. The coarse gravel-like consistency of the fill has a high

void ratio, which likely is responsible for the grout loss observed by Golder during piezometer installation.

Glacial Till

A layer of glacial till, ranging in thickness from approximately 5 to 11 feet, was encountered directly underneath

the rockfill layer in each boring. Laboratory testing showed this layer had an average moisture content of 15%

and was composed of 37-74% fines (average = 55), indicating sizeable quantities of coarse grained soils. N-

values ranged from 16 to 91 with an average of 56, indicating a hard consistency. The layer can typically be

described as of brown, moist, low plasticity, hard, silt with some clay, some sand, and some gravel.

Bedrock Conditions

Bedrock was encountered in all four borings at depths ranging from about 45 to 56 ft bgs. Rock quality

designation (RQD) of the core samples indicated that the bedrock varies from good (75%) in the first run of DNW-

1 to excellent (100%) in the first run of DNW-3. Core samples showed bedrock consists of light gray, fine-grained

limestone. The rock is moderately to very hard, fresh to slightly weathered, thin-bedded, and moderately to

slightly fractured. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of the rock core runs ranged from 62 to 74 with an average of 70.

Laboratory testing indicated an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 6,157 to 17,441 psi with an average of

14,252 psi. The low value was from a specimen webbed with healed discontinuities (see attached rock core

photos in Appendix B), and the post-test photo provided in the lab report shows the sample failed along one of

these planes and may not be representative of the intact rock strength. Elastic moduli and Poisson’s Ratio test

results from the rock core testing are provided in Appendix C. A detailed summary of the rock core is presented

in the boring logs.

Golder used bedrock elevation data encountered in the four borings along with bedrock elevations encountered in

historical borings provided by NYSTA11, as well as bedrock outcrops mapped in the field by Golder and surveyed

by C-M to develop interpreted bedrock surface contours across the site. As shown on attached Figure 2, the

bedrock surface dips down from west to east across the site and dips locally from southwest to the northeast

along the wall profile with bedrock elevations varying between approximately El. 130 and El. 110 in the vicinity of

the existing soldier pile and lagging wall.

Groundwater

Groundwater level was measured prior to rock coring, upon completion of the boreholes, and following removal of

the casing. Groundwater level measurements varied from approximately 34 to 55 ft below the roadway. The

observed variation is likely influenced by several factors including the addition of water used during the drilling

process and natural variations such as precipitation and temperature, and it may not be representative of a

stabilized water level. The interpreted groundwater level is shown on the subsurface profile in Figures 3 and 4.

11 Historical boring locations are approximate and taken from State of New York Department of Public Works Boring Logs dated 1952 and

1960; and De Leuw and Drill Drawing dated 1952 and titled “Plan and Profile Thruway Sta. 379+00 to 394+00.”


9

A piezometer was installed in boring DNW-1. The measured groundwater level in the completed piezometer

ranged from 46 to 56 ft below road surface following piezometer installation and bailing, respectively, on August

17, 2018. NYSTA personnel read the piezometer on October 10, 2018 and observed a groundwater level of 51

feet in DNW-1.

5.0 WALL REMEDIATION EVALUATIONS

5.1 Replacement Wall Design Considerations and Assumptions

The existing soldier pile and lagging wall was constructed in 1992 and many of the design assumptions are based

on the December 1991 as-built plans1 and lagging shop drawing2. The plans indicated that the existing 35 ft long

soldier piles are HP14x89 sections embedded 20 ft below ground surface (measured from the base of the

exposed wall face, i.e., bottom of lagging) in 24-inch diameter, cased, grout-filled shafts. The piles are assumed

to have an ultimate yield strength of 36 ksi, based on typical NYSTA design recommendations in 1991. The

exposed wall height is 15 ft with reinforced concrete lagging facing. The lagging does not currently extend below

ground surface at the base of the wall.

The wall currently shows signs of movement evident by soldier pile/lagging deflection and asphalt patching

around the concrete wall cap. Based on our field observations, SPT N-values from the test borings, laboratory

test data, and literature correlations to soil strength, we assumed a friction angle of 37 degrees for the existing

gravelly sand rockfill material behind the soldier pile and lagging wall as well as for the rockfill layer extending

down over the slope to the river. As stated previously, tension cracks (e.g., headscarps) are present on the slope

below the wall indicating that the factor of safety of the slope is approaching unity. Per our communications with

NYSTA, we understand that they do not plan to stabilize the slope in front of the wall and that the final design wall

alternative should account for probable slope displacements in the future. Accordingly, our design evaluations

assume a long term slope configuration in front of the wall that corresponds to a slope angle with a minimum

factor of safety of 1.3 based on infinite slope theory and verified with method of slices. The infinite slope analysis

indicates that the slope (from the toe at the river to the existing soldier piles) would have a factor of safety equal to

1.3 if it is flattened to a 30 degree angle. A slope flattened to 30 degrees would expose a greater wall height for

repair options that stabilize the existing wall than repair options involving a new wall constructed behind the

existing guardrail. As shown on Figure 6, a slope flattened to 30 degrees results in approximately 14 ft of passive

resistance soil loss at the bottom of the existing wall (i.e. resulting in a total exposed wall height of 29 ft and a

remaining soldier pile embedment depth of 6 ft). For a new wall located behind the guardrail, a slope flattened to

30 degrees would result in an exposed wall height of 24.4 ft and the soldier pile embedment could be designed to

support this condition.

In addition to the geotechnical and structural limitations, there is also an existing fiber optic junction box and cable

that is located on the slope in front of the wall as shown on Figures 2 and 5. The utility company flagged the

location of the cable and C-M surveyed the horizontal location, but the buried elevation of the cable is unknown.

Based on the survey, the cable is located between approximately 2 and 9 ft in front of the existing wall. C-M and

the NYSTA have indicated that the fiber optic cable will not be allowed to be relocated or disturbed during the

construction of the replacement wall.

The observed wall movement and stability concerns with the slope warrant consideration of equipment access

and temporary loads during construction. For repair options that stabilize the existing wall construction equipment

cannot access the ground in front of the wall from below because additional surcharge from equipment and/or

construction of an access road will compromise the stability of the slope. Excavating a bench in front of the base


10

of the existing wall is unacceptable because this would reduce passive earth pressure resistance acting to support

the existing wall. If working from above the wall, the construction surcharge loads from cranes and heavy

equipment need to be restricted and set-back sufficient distance from the wall face to limit further loading on the

existing failing wall. For repair options involving a new wall at the existing guardrail, a narrow bench could be

excavated between the new wall and the existing wall where lightweight equipment may be able to be operate if

equipment surcharge pressures are restricted to avoid jeopardizing the stability of the slope in front of the wall.

5.2 Remediation Alternatives

Golder considered several methods for stabilizing the existing wall or installing a new permanent retaining wall

given the design and construction considerations discussed above. The alternatives were evaluated based on

one or more of the following factors: geotechnical global stability, soil/structural feasibility, schedule,

constructability, design life and general costs. A summary of the design considerations for each alternative and

the advantages and disadvantages are provided herein.

5.2.1 Repair Existing Wall – Deadman Anchors

This option involved installing deadmen anchorage working from the embankment slope off the shoulder of the

southbound lanes and anchoring them to the existing wall. One or two rows of anchors would be drilled, using

horizontal auger bore drilling techniques, from the southbound shoulder to the existing wall and tied into walers

spanning the face of the existing wall.

Advantages:

Drilling from the southbound side of the road will significantly reduce construction surcharges on the existing

wall, reducing risk of wall or slope failure during construction.

Construction impacts to Thruway traffic minimized due to construction access off southern shoulder.

Don’t need to remove the existing wall.

Disadvantages:

Limited design life reusing an existing wall that is already 26 years old.

Horizontal auger bore drilling will require specialty contractors and may increase costs.

Drilling from the southbound shoulder will require long anchors and tight location tolerances for the anchors

to tie into the walers at specific locations.

The technology is considered feasible, but the quality and experience of the specialty contractor would be

critical, and soil conditions along the full extent of auger boring would need to be more comprehensively

defined that requires more time than the design schedule allows.

Design details and special provisions would need to be developed that would be customized for this project.

Preliminary analyses indicated that the existing wall rehabilitation option does not provide an adequate factor

of safety for global stability for the assumed long term slope grades.


11

5.2.2 Repair Existing Wall – Soil Nail Reinforcement

This method involved installing soil nails through the existing concrete lagging to provide a larger stabilized zone

behind the existing wall, restrain the wall against further movement, and provide improved global stability.

Advantages:

Equipment used to install soil nails is typically lighter than equipment required for the other stabilization

alternatives. Therefore, the construction surcharge on the existing wall would be lower than other

alternatives, comparatively reducing risk of wall or slope failure during construction.

Soil nail installation is relatively quick and generally economical.


Disadvantages:


Preliminary stability analyses indicated an unacceptable factor of safety for a reasonable nail pattern and

length (e.g. 6 ft x 3 ft spacing and 35 ft long).

A feasible design would require long nails with tight spacing (e.g., 3 ft x 3 ft or tighter) to provide enough

resistance. Long nails at a tight grid spacing would likely prove difficult to install straight.

Soil nails are most efficient at low angles (i.e. 10° to 20° from horizontal12) and would be difficult to grout

properly and achieve required bond strengths. Observed grout loss during monitoring well installation in the

field program indicate that grout take may be problematic during installation.

The soil nail installation equipment would still need to sit atop the existing wall resulting in construction

stability concerns.

The fiber optic line running below the wall restricts the depth to which reinforcement can be installed without

disturbing the line. For a 29 ft design wall height, only the upper 16-17 ft of the wall can be reinforced.



5.2.3 Repair Existing Wall – Tieback Anchors

This alternative involved installing tieback anchors through the existing wall lagging to provide additional lateral

resistance. The anchors would be tied to walers which span across the wall transferring anchor loads to the piles.

Advantages:

Tieback anchors typically can withstand relatively large horizontal wall pressures.

Tiebacks can be installed at longer lengths and at steeper angles than soil nails resulting in a lower number

of larger capacity anchors required than soil nails.

12 National Highway Institute (2015). “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 Soil Nail Walls – Reference Manual,” Report FHWA-NHI-14-

007, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. pp. 150.


12


Disadvantages:


The existing wall has limited passive resistance at the design state (i.e., design for 6 ft pile embedment for

stable slope in front of wall as discussed above).

The existing wall has limited pile capacity (i.e., soldier piles do not extend down to bedrock, so limited end

bearing and limited skin friction in rockfill due to shallow embedment).

Due to limited passive resistance and pile capacity of the existing wall, the anchors would need to be

installed at low angles (i.e. 10° from horizontal) to limit the vertical loading on the piles. At these low angles,

tiebacks would be difficult to grout properly and achieve required bond strengths. Observed grout loss

during monitoring well installation in the field program indicate that grout take may be problematic during

installation.

The fiber optic line running below the wall restricts the depth to which reinforcement can be installed without

disturbing the line. For a 29 ft design wall height, only the upper 16-17 ft of the wall can be reinforced which

allows for two rows of anchors.

Achieving adequate bond at low anchor angles may be problematic during construction.

Due to the low anchor angles, the bond zone will be located in the rockfill. The rockfill will have lower bond

strengths and longer bond zones compared to anchors in bedrock. Furthermore, we observed increased

grout takes for piezometer installation during the field program which indicates the potential for grouting

complications (i.e. significant grout losses) during construction.

The maximum bond length recommended by the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) for ground anchors is 40 ft13.

Preliminary global stability and soil/structure interaction analyses indicated bond lengths approaching or

above recommended maximum to achieve required loads and stability.



5.2.4 New Sheetpile Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks)

This option considered installing a new sheetpile wall behind the existing guardrail. Tieback anchors would be

installed through the sheetpiles to provide the required lateral resistance.

Advantages:

Increased service life of a new wall as compared to reusing the existing wall.

Can design the new sheetpile wall to withstand the required horizontal and vertical loads.

13 Post-Tensioning Institute, (2014). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors – PTI DC35.1-14,” 5th edition, United States

of America.


13

Installation behind the guardrail will reduce surcharges on the existing unstable wall during construction as

equipment will be set back.

Sheetpiles are relatively quick to install.

Disadvantages:

Installation of sheetpiles through the existing rockfill may be problematic and considered unfeasible.

Sheetpile installation equipment is heavier than equipment used for other alternatives.

New wall will be offset towards the Thruway mainline. Therefore access and impacts to Thruway traffic will

be greater.

Need to remove the existing wall to gain access to install tiebacks.

Design will need to include a bridge rail transition with a moment slab or a concrete barrier with a moment

slab so that traffic impact load is not transmitted to the new wall.

5.2.5 New Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall with Permanent Ground Anchors (Tiebacks)

This option involved installing a new soldier pile and lagging retaining wall with tieback anchors extended to

bedrock. The new wall would be installed approximately underneath the existing guardrail. Soldier piles would be

driven to bedrock refusal with pile driving equipment. The existing wall would be removed as the new wall is

constructed.

Advantages:

Increased service life of a new wall as compared to reusing the existing wall.

Can design the new wall to withstand the required horizontal and vertical loads. Anchors can be installed at

steeper angles which will allow for shorter, high capacity anchors to bedrock, and the soldier piles can be

designed to resist the increased vertical loading from the steeper anchors.

Construction equipment setbacks for construction of the new wall located at the guardrail will reduce

surcharges on the existing unstable wall.

Disadvantages:

Pile driving equipment is heavier than equipment used for other alternatives, may result in large surcharge

forces, greater setbacks and more space needed during construction.

New wall will be offset towards the Thruway mainline requiring a temporary lane shift during construction.

Therefore access and impacts to Thruway traffic will be greater.

Need to partially remove the existing wall to gain access to install tiebacks.

Design will need to include a bridge rail transition with a moment slab or a concrete barrier with a moment

slab so that traffic impact load is not transmitted to the new wall.

Costs associated with the construction of the new wall and partial demolition of the existing wall.


14

5.3 Alternative Selection

After considering each of the alternatives above, through varying levels of analysis, we recommend designing a

new wall rather than rehabilitating the existing wall. The existing soldier piles are assumed to be constructed of

36 ksi steel which limits the allowable moment on the wall. Soldier piles with higher yield strengths can be

specified for the new wall which allows for more of the lateral loads to be carried by the piles. Preliminary

analyses for rehabilitation of the existing wall did not provide adequate global stability factors of safety (i.e., FS <

1.3). For the long term design assumption of a flattened slope to 30 degrees in front of the existing wall, the

resulting limited pile embedment (6 ft) was concluded to be unacceptable for global stability, and anchoring the

existing soldier piles with tiebacks would apply vertical loads to the piles that exceeded the pile end bearing

resistance. To reduce vertical loads on the piles, anchors and/or soil nails needed to be installed at low angles

(i.e. 10°); however, anchors installed at these low angles do not intercept the bedrock and therefore were relying

on bond zones within the rockfill. Anchors installed at low angles become difficult to grout leading to uncertainty

associated with the quality of the bond zone. The risk of related grouting complications during construction was

concluded to be significant considering the increased grout takes measured during piezometer installations made

at one test boring during the field exploration program. In addition, to achieve the required anchor resistance and

satisfy global stability, the bond lengths for the existing wall rehabilitation options were approaching, or exceeding,

the 40 foot maximum bond zone lengths in soil recommended by PTI.

Unacceptable global stability conditions (FS < 1.3) was another factor in rejecting the option of rehabilitating the

existing wall with grouted tiebacks. Due to access limitations imposed by the fiber optic line running along the

bottom of the existing wall face, the number of anchor rows that could be assumed for design is limited. The

existing wall rehabilitation evaluations as described in Section 5.1 assumed that the wall would have 29 ft of

facing exposed with 6 ft of pile embedment at the toe under long term conditions. However, the deepest depth

that an anchor can be placed without disturbing the fiber optic line is 16-17 ft below the top of wall. This leaves

approximately 12-13 ft of unbraced wall below the fiber optic line elevation. Without a third anchor row, this

unbraced zone is problematic from a global stability standpoint and the two upper anchor rows are required to

carry higher loads.

Soil nail rehabilitation of the existing wall was eliminated from consideration because of the very tight and

impractical grid spacing and nail lengths required as discussed above. The deadman wall alternative was

eliminated from consideration because the horizontal auger bore drilling option may be difficult to coordinate and

may not provide the tolerances required to align with the required anchor elevations on the wall. Installation of a

new sheetpile wall was eliminated from consideration due to the potential issues installing sheetpiles through the

existing rockfill. Therefore, Golder recommends installation of a new tieback anchored soldier pile and lagging

wall located approximately along the alignment of the existing guardrail and about 7ft west of the existing wall.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

Based on the conclusions from the alternatives analysis and discussion with C-M and the NYSTA, the

recommended design includes installation of a new soldier pile and lagging wall with permanent tieback anchors

drilled into bedrock. Golder worked with C-M and the NYSTA to design the new wall system. During preliminary

design the tieback anchors were designed to be connected to walers attached to the soldier piles, with each

tieback anchoring two soldier piles. The design was modified during final design to eliminate the walers and


15

attach the tiebacks to each soldier pile, thus doubling the number of tiebacks and reducing the load for each

anchor.

The proposed new wall is 89 ft 2 in. long and is located 7 ft (face to face) behind the existing wall along the

alignment of the existing guardrail. Drawings prepared by C-M show the wall plan and profile and design

details14. The new wall includes a total of 12 soldier piles (P1 to P12) spaced 8 ft on center and end bearing on

bedrock with estimated lengths ranging from about 47 to 61 ft based on the interpreted bedrock surface. The

design includes one row of tieback anchors spaced at 8 ft on center that are connected to each pile. All anchors

are located 8 ft down from the top of the wall and inclined at 45 degrees. Temporary wood lagging is planned to

be installed behind the back face of the `soldier pile flanges during top down wall construction and anchor

installation. The lagging will be installed about 4 ft below the existing ground surface in front of the existing wall.

The permanent wall facing will be a cast-in-place concrete facia. Behind the top of the wall a moment slab/cast-

in-place concrete barrier is included at the highway shoulder to prevent traffic impact loads from being transmitted

to the new wall.

6.2 Seismic Design Parameters

The borings drilled during this investigation encountered bedrock varying from about 45 to 56 ft bgs. The Site

Class definition for the project area was determined using the B-method outlined in the AASHTO LRFD15 Section

3.10.3.1. The B-method calculates the SPT blow count for the upper 100 feet at the site using the average N-

values for each subsurface layer and the depths of each layer. The N-value for the bedrock is assumed to be 100

blows/ft. Based on the site class definitions presented in AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1.1, the existing subsurface

profile (overburden soils and bedrock) results in a Site Class C. Refer to the seismic site class calculations in

Appendix D.

The horizontal peak ground acceleration coefficient (PGA), the 0.2-second spectral response acceleration (Ss)

and 1-second spectral response acceleration (S1) can be determined using online USGS mapping software. The

Site Class classification of “C” and site location can be entered into the software which returns the PGA (PGA =

0.057 g), the spectral response accelerations (Ss = 0.128 g and S1 = 0.038 g), effective peak ground acceleration

coefficient (As = 0.068 g), and the corresponding site coefficients, Fpga, of 1.2, Fa, of 1.2 and Fv, of 1.7.

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) recommends using a horizontal pseudo-static

coefficient, kh, equal to half of As (kh = 0.034 g) and a vertical pseudo-static coefficient, kv, equal to zero for

pseudo-static slope stability analyses16. For seismic earth pressure calculations, NYSDOT recommends using kh

equal to 1.5 x As (kh = 0.102 g) and kv equal to zero for walls not free to move during seismic loading and kh equal

to 0.5 x As (kh = 0.034 g) and kv equal to zero for walls free to move during seismic loading 17. The new wall will

have some flexibility and will be free to deflect during a seismic event, however the tieback anchors will provide

some horizontal restraint. Therefore, Golder recommends using the conservative higher kh value for design.

14 Creighton-Manning Draft Drawings – Albany Division Plans for the Stabilization at MP 113.22 Catskill Creek in Greene County, Town of

Catskill, ADP Submission Plans dated November 2018 and Drawing ST-5 dated January 2019. 15 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2017). “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition”, Washington, D.C. 16 New York State Department of Transportation (2015). “Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 9 – Seismic Design,” Rev. 1, pp.9-66. 17 New York State Department of Transportation (2012). “Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 17 – Abutments, Retaining Walls, and

Reinforced Slopes,” DRAFT, pp.17-32.


16

6.3 Earth Pressures

As requested by the NYSTA, we followed the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Procedure’s (GDP-1118)

recommendations and used Rankine earth pressure theory for the design earth pressures. The soldier pile and

lagging wall should be designed to resist active earth pressures using an earth pressure coefficient, Ka, of 0.25

assuming a horizontal backfill and a friction angle, ϕ, of 37 degrees for the existing rockfill material. As interface

friction acts upwards on the active wedge and reduces active pressures, it was conservatively ignored.

For the seismic analysis, the Mononobe-Okabe procedure was used to calculate the design seismic active earth

pressure coefficient, Kae, per Section 17.4.11 of the NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual17. This coefficient is

only used for the final design condition with live load traffic surcharges applied. We recommend using a Kae value

of 0.31 for design, assuming a ϕ of 37 degrees, horizontal backfill, plumb wall facing, no interface friction on the

wall, and seismic design parameters a discussed in Section 6.2.

The design of the new soldier pile and lagging wall incorporates passive resistance on the piles embedded in the

soil below the toe of the exposed wall. The passive earth pressures were determined using an infinite slope

analysis, referred to as Case 1 in GDP-11 (page A-2)18, which uses the design slope angle below the wall, β, of

30 degrees and ϕ of 37 degrees. Interface wall friction is ignored in this analysis. Per GDP-1118, the passive

pressure coefficients were reduced by a factor of 1.5 resulting in a design Kp of 1.3. A Kp of 1.8 was used for the

seismic design which correlates to a factor of safety of 1.1.

The horizontal earth pressure acting on the wall from the live traffic load was calculated per the methodology

outlined in GDP-1118. A uniform surcharge of 250 pounds per square foot (psf), equivalent to 2 ft of soil, was

applied to the roadway surface up to the edge of the new retaining wall. The surcharge was then multiplied by the

active earth pressure coefficient resulting in a surcharge pressure of 62 psf applied as a rectangular distribution

on the back of the wall.

Conditions during construction were analyzed for global stability for two cases assuming a uniform construction

surcharge load of 400 psf was applied from the location of the back of the new wall and extending approximately

20 ft west to the high speed northbound travel lane. This 400 psf surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment

distributed over roughly 20 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs to design crane mats. The remainder of

the travel lanes still has a 250 psf live load surcharge applied. As discussed in Section 7.2 Case A assumed the

current ground surface behind the new wall location (approximately EL 173 ft) is maintained during construction

and a 400 psf surcharge is applied behind the new wall with temporary lagging installed to a depth of 10 ft. Case

B assumes the ground surface behind the new wall location is excavated 5 ft deep (to approximately EL 168 ft)

and a 400 psf construction surcharge is applied behind the new wall location prior to new wall construction and

prior to excavation below EL 168 ft. The construction cases were also analyzed including a 350 psf surcharge

located between the old and new walls. This 350 psf surcharge is based on 42,000 lbs of equipment distributed

over roughly a 6 ft x 20 ft area.

The construction cases analyzed in the shoring analysis use a similar uniform 400 psf surcharge applied at the

current ground surface behind the new wall location for Case A, and a 20 ft wide 400 psf surcharge applied at a 5

ft lower ground surface behind the new wall location (EL 168 ft) for Case B. For Case A the surcharge earth

18 New York State Department of Transportation (2007). “Geotechnical Design Procedure for Flexible Wall Systems, Geotechnical Design

Procedure, GDP-11, Revision #3”, Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, April 2007.


17

pressures applied to the new wall were analyzed using conventional methods and a rectangular distribution. For

Case B the earth pressures applied to the existing wall were analyzed using a Boussinesq stress distribution for

surcharge loading in accordance with AASHTO19.

6.4 Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis

A Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis was evaluated using the computer model Shoring Suite20. This analysis was

performed to size the soldier piles (i.e., section modulus and embedment length) and determine the tieback

anchor loads (i.e., axial load and minimum bond zone). We made the following design/input assumptions for the

Shoring Suite analysis:

The soldier piles will be driven into place and will be constructed of 50 ksi steel, assuming Fb/Fy = 0.55 for

calculating the allowable bending moment and selecting an acceptable section modulus. The temporary

seismic design condition was analyzed assuming Fb/Fy = 0.90 to verify the selected pile section.

The exposed wall height for the design condition is 24.4 ft, however, the final constructed height per this

contract is 19 ft (see Case 3 described below).

Tie-back anchors will be extended into competent soft limestone bedrock inside a minimum 7-inch diameter

drill hole. For design the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) recommends applying a factor of safety of 2.0 to the

ultimate bond strength of 150 pounds per square inch (psi) for soft limestone and grout.21 Accordingly, our

analysis assumed a design bond strength of 75 psi (10.8 kips per square foot (ksf)). Per NYSDOT

specifications, the contractor is responsible for grouted tieback design in accordance with PTI22

requirements. During construction the Contractor’s Engineer will design the diameter and length of the

anchor bond zone in rock to support the anchor design load and testing loads and submit the design to the

NYSTA for approval.

The earth pressure envelopes developed in accordance with Section 6.3, coupled with the design assumption

described above, were used to analyze the following wall cases:

Case 1: New Wall Long-Term Static Condition – This case considered a full-height final condition (24.4 ft

exposed wall height) that included a surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the top of the wall, all anchors

installed and tensioned, and the slope at the base of the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope.

Case 2: New Wall Long-Term Seismic Condition – This case is the same as Case 1, but applies seismic

earth pressures as discussion in Section 6.2.

Case 3: New Wall Partial-Height Temporary Condition – This case assumes the front of the wall would be

excavated to 10 ft bgs and timber lagging would be installed in preparation for the anchor installation at 8

ft. As described above in Section 6.3 a uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf was applied at the

top of the wall. The slope in front of the wall at the 10 ft. depth level is assumed to slope down at a 30

degree angle.

19 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2017). “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition”, Section 3.11.6.2 – Point, Line and Strip Loads (ES): Walls Restrained from Movement. Washington, D.C. 20 CivilTech Software, (2016). “Shoring Suite,” version 8.17a. 21 Post-Tensioning Institute, (2014). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors – PTI DC35.1-14,” 5th edition, United States

of America.


18

Case 4: Long Term Static Condition (End Pile South End of Wall) - This case considered a 10 ft tall wall design condition, included a surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the top of the wall, and the slope at the base of the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope. This wall section assumes 4ft pile spacing to account for the position of the end pile.

Case 5: Existing Wall Temporary Condition with 5 ft Excavation Behind Existing and New Wall Location –

To assess temporary construction loading effects on the existing soldier pile and lagging wall this case

assumes a 5 ft deep excavation (to EL 168 ft) is made behind the location of the existing wall and extending

20 ft back behind the new wall location. A 400 psf surcharge load is applied to a 20 ft by 20 ft area behind

the new wall location at EL 168 ft. and the grade between the new wall and the existing wall is also at El

168 ft.

Based on the preliminary design evaluations listed above, pile and anchor spacing/orientation were varied within

the program to determine an acceptable design section. The recommended design for the tieback wall includes a

total of 12 HP 14x102 soldier piles, spaced at 8 ft on-center (larger piles may be used to account for section loss

due to corrosion and anchor sleeve placement and should be designed accordingly). In addition, the Shoring

Suite analysis indicates a minimum pile embedment depth of approximately 11.6 ft below the bottom of the wall

(equal to a total pile length of 36 ft.) based on moment equilibrium. Additional criteria for minimum soldier pile

embedment are discussed in Sections 6.5 (pile bearing capacity) and 6.6 (global stability). The governing criteria

is the depth required for pile end bearing on the bedrock surface which is estimated to range from about 45 to 61

ft below the top of the wall.

The recommended wall design includes one row of tieback anchors, installed at an inclination of 45 degrees,

spaced at 8 ft on center, and connected to each pile. The Shoring Suite analysis requires an unadjusted anchor

load of 85 kips (applied at the 45 degree angle) to satisfy wall equilibrium under these conditions. GDP-1118

indicates that a factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the anchor load resulting in a design anchor load of

128 kips with horizontal and vertical components of 90 kips. All anchors should be tested to 150% of the design

load (192 kips) per NYSDOT requirements for permanent tiebacks and locked-off at 80% of the design load (102

kips). Assuming a bond strength of 10.8 ksf and borehole diameter of 7-inches, as listed in the design

assumptions, we recommend a 10 ft minimum anchor bond length into competent rock which also corresponds to

the required minimum bond length in rock indicated in NYSDOT’s Standard Specification Section 211 for grouted

tiebacks22. For 10 foot minimum bond lengths in bedrock the minimum total anchor lengths are estimated to

range from about 60 to 80 ft. Anchor design should include a minimum free length of 15 ft per GDP-1118 criteria.

Per NYSTA specifications22,23 the contractor’s anchor design should also meet the following requirements: 1) the

design load should not exceed 53 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength (SMTS, also referred to as

the Guaranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) in NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 21122); and 2) the

maximum test load should not exceed 80 percent of the SMTS. The number of strands in the anchors and the

bond lengths should be determined by the contractor. The permanent anchors should include double corrosion

protection including a corrugated PVC sheath and a grease filled anchorage cover as detailed in Figure 7 for

clarity.

Anchor testing requirements and procedures are described in NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 21122.

The first two anchors installed should be performance tested (to 150% of the design load) and all remaining

22 NYSDOT, (2018). “Standard Specifications Section 211 Internally Stabilized Cut Structures”, January 1, 2018. 23 NYSDOT, (2019). “Standard Specifications (USC), Section 731-02 Grouted Tieback Assembly”, pp 1267-1268.


19

anchors should be proof tested (to 150% of the design load). Following successful testing and acceptance by the

engineer, the anchors can be locked off and the final load in the anchor determined from a lift-off test.

6.5 Soldier Pile Axial Capacity

The soldier piles will need to be installed to resist axial loads imposed by the tieback anchor loads and the weight

of the soldier pile and lagging wall system. We estimate that the axial vertical design load on each pile is 125

kips: 90 kips is transferred from the anchors, and 35 kips is transferred from dead load (i.e. self-weight of the

piles and wall components). During anchor testing, the estimated total vertical axial load applied to the piles is

170 kips. We recommend all soldier piles be driven through the gravelly sand rockfill and underlying glacial till to

end bearing refusal on bedrock. The bedrock surface is estimated to vary between approximately Elevation 112

and 127 at the location of the proposed new wall, which correlates to estimated soldier pile lengths ranging from

about 46 ft at the south end of the wall to about 61 ft at the north end.

For piles driven to bedrock refusal the structural capacity of the pile will govern over the geotechnical capacity and

should account for section loss due to corrosion and for combined axial, flexural and lateral resistance. Pile

driving points should be used to protect tips and improve penetration. Hard driving conditions and occasional

cobbles and boulders could provide impediments for pile penetrations reaching refusal criteria. A minimum pile

length of 36 ft below the top of the wall is required to satisfy the wall design requirements as discussed in Section

6.4. A drivability analysis for the pile installations should be performed based on the contractors proposed pile

driving hammer and equipment and the results of a wave equation analysis. Considering AASHTO Table

4.5.6.2A24 and soldier pile loads imposed during anchor testing, we recommend a refusal driving criteria be

developed using a factor of safety of 2.75 applied to the soldier pile vertical design load. For a required vertical

design capacity of 125 kips, this will require driving the pile to an ultimate capacity of 345 kips. Driving stresses

should be limited to 0.9 Fy. Dynamic testing is recommended during the installation of the first two soldier piles to

establish a driving criteria for the minimum ultimate capacity and refusal resistance that meets the maximum

driving stresses criteria.

6.6 Global Stability

The stability analyses included an evaluation of the slope in front of the wall as well global stability of the

proposed retaining wall which incorporates stabilizing effects from anchored soldier piles. Global stability was

evaluated using the computer model SLIDE25. The analyses were performed at one design section as shown on

Figure 6 and include evaluations of six grading cases (or stages) for wall construction as detailed below.

1. Existing conditions.

2. Temporary construction condition after excavation to 10 ft in front of the new wall, installation of treated

timber lagging, placement of construction surcharge at top of wall, and prior to anchor installation.

3. Temporary construction condition after anchor installation and additional excavation/lagging placement to

19 ft in front of new wall.

24 AASHTO, (2002). “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 2002”, American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., Code: HB-17, ISBN: 156051-171-0. 25 Rocscience, Inc. 2018. “SLIDE – 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis”, Version 2018 8.016, build date July 23, 2018, Toronto,

Ontario, Canada.


20

4. Final design conditions (see Figure 6 @ Design Grade) with permanent wall facing extended to 24.4 ft in

front of wall.

5. Final design seismic conditions (see Figure 6 @ Design Grade) with permanent wall facing to 24.4 ft in

front of wall.

6. Temporary construction condition assumes a 5 ft excavation (to EL 168) is made 28 ft behind the existing

wall, and a uniformly distributed construction surcharge for pile driving is applied at EL 168 ft to a 20 ft by

20 ft area behind the new wall during soldier pile installations.

Assumed geometries, configurations, subsurface conditions, and the location of critical failure surfaces

determined from the analyses are shown schematically on stability cross-sections in Appendix D. The

calculations in Appendix D also provide a description of the analytical methods and assumptions used for the

stability analyses. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 3 below.

Due to existing slope stability concerns and site access limitations preventing slope repairs below the wall, a

minimum factor of safety (FS) of 1.3 was required for the final design conditions per our discussions with C-M and

the NYSTA. A target minimum FS of 1.1 was established for temporary construction conditions and a minimum

FS of 1.0 was established for seismic loading conditions. Flood conditions and/or elevated groundwater

conditions were not considered as part of this analysis. The potential for scour erosion at the toe of the soil slope

was ignored per discussions with the NYSTA. All slope models were analyzed for circular surfaces using the

simplified Bishop method.

Case 1: The existing slope in front of the wall was assumed to have a FS of 1.0 based on the observed head

scarps and evidence of slope displacement at the top of slope. The back-calculated analysis using SLIDE results

in a FS slightly less than 1.0, which confirms our field observations. Subsurface soil properties were selected

based on correlations to SPT blow counts as well as findings from the back-calculated stability analysis.

Observed ground water conditions at the time of drilling were used in the slope model. The SLIDE mode outputs

for the existing slope is summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D. This lower minimum FS for

shallow failure surfaces on the slope in front of the wall also exists for Cases 2 and 3 but was ignored when

identifying the minimum FS for the purpose of this analysis considering the NYSTA’s decision to not include slope

improvements at those areas as part of this project. Cases 2 and 3 consider only deeper-seated failures passing

under the proposed wall structure.

Case 2: Since the current slope is believed to have a FS close to 1.0, additional loading at the top of slope should

be minimized during construction. In this scenario we assumed construction surcharges will not be allowed at or

behind the top of the existing wall until soldier piles are installed and treated timber lagging is placed to a depth

not to exceed 10 ft for the adjacent segment of the new permanent wall. In order to install the solder piles and

minimize additional construction ground pressures behind the top of the current wall, we assumed that a pile

driving rig could drive soldier piles ahead of itself and a portion of the timber lagging for the new wall could be

installed prior to moving the rig behind the top of the new wall. Case 2 models the stage after the new soldier

piles are installed, excavation and lagging are installed to a depth of 10 ft in front of the wall, anchors are not yet

installed, and the pile driving rig (or other construction equipment) is moved to a location behind the top of the

new wall. Case 2 was also analyzed with a uniform construction surcharge load of 350 psf for anchor installation

equipment (if desired) located between the walls on a 7 ft wide bench at the 10 ft excavation level. This 350 psf

surcharge is based on equipment weighing 45,000 lbs applying a uniform load on mats over a 7 ft x 20 ft area.


21

Both analyses resulted in a FS > 1.1 (minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix

D.

Case 3: Case 3 represents the stage after the anchors are installed, equipment is still located at the top of the

wall, and the slope in front of the wall is excavated 19 ft below the top of the wall to install the bottom section of

timber lagging. The 19 ft wall height for this case is the height of permanent wall facing planned to be installed

with this contract. Case 3 also included a 6 ft wide, 350 psf construction surcharge located on the bench at the

base of the wall face for equipment to install the permanent wall facing. These analyses resulted in FS > 1.1

(minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D.

Case 4: This analysis evaluated the permanent wall at the final (long-term) design grades as shown on Figure 6

(labeled as the “Design Grade” slope line) with an exposed wall height of 24.4 ft. The slope below the wall was

assumed to have a long term post-construction geometry corresponding to a flattened slope surface with a FS >

1.3 as discussed in Section 5.1, and a live load traffic surcharge of 250 psf was applied behind the top of the wall.

The existing wall was assumed to have been removed for the purpose of this analysis. This analysis resulted in a

FS > 1.3 (minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D.

Case 5: Case 5 grades are the same as Case 4, but a horizontal earthquake coefficient of 0.034 g was applied to

the model. The vertical earthquake coefficient was ignored as discussed in Section 6.2. This analysis resulted in

a FS > 1.0 (minimum required) as summarized in Table 3: and presented in Appendix D.

Case 6: This analysis evaluated a 5 ft excavation and construction surcharge behind the new wall location to

assess temporary construction loading effects on the existing soldier pile and lagging wall. This case assumes a

5 ft deep excavation (to EL 168 ft) is made behind the location of the existing wall and extending 20 ft back behind

the new wall. A 400 psf surcharge load is applied to a 20 ft by 20 ft area at the new wall location at EL 168 ft. and

the grade between the new wall and the existing wall is also at El 168 ft. A FS > 1.1 (minimum required) was

calculated for this case as summarized in Table 3 and presented in Appendix D.

Table 3: Global Stability Summary

Stability Case Description Figure Number (Appendix D)

Factor of Safety

Case 1 Existing Conditions D-2 0.97

Case 2

Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 10 ft, No Anchors Installed- No Surcharge Below Proposed Wall

D-3.1 1.21

Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 10 ft, No Anchors Installed - Includes Surcharge Below Proposed Wall

D-3.2 1.21

Case 3

Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 19 ft, Anchors Installed - No Surcharge at Bench at Base of Wall

D-4.1 1.33

Construction: Excavation and Lagging to 19 ft, Anchors installed - Includes Surcharge at Bench at Base of Wall

D-4.2 1.24


22

Stability Case Description Figure Number (Appendix D)

Factor of Safety

Case 4 Permanent (Long-Term) Design Condition D-5 1.30

Case 5 Permanent (Long-Term) Design Seismic Condition D-6 1.23

Case 6 Construction: Temporary Construction Condition to Install Piles - Assumes a 5ft excavation behind the new wall and a surcharge.

D-7 1.18

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Preliminary Quantity and Opinion of Construction Cost

Based on our preliminary geotechnical design recommendations for the anchored soldier pile and lagging

retaining wall system, we made the following assumptions regarding materials and quantities for a preliminary

opinion of construction costs:

Piles - There are twelve HP 14x102 piles, spaced 8 ft on-center, driven to refusal on rock (total length 625 ft).

We included an assumed mobilization cost of the pile driving equipment in the estimate.

Timber Lagging - Pressure treated timber lagging will be specified during construction. Lagging will cover

roughly 1,600 SF of wall face.

Cast-In-Place Concrete Facia - Cast-in-place concrete facia per C-M’s design drawings14 is assumed to be

installed for the permanent wall facing. Lagging will cover roughly 2,000 SF of wall.

Tiebacks -Twelve (12) permanent double corrosion protected tieback strand anchors, grouted in place,

spaced 8 ft on-center (total length 800 ft). Field fabrication and structural steel for the anchor connections is

included in this cost estimate.

Anchor Testing – Anchor testing of production anchors will be specified to include two performance tests and

ten proof tests. Mobilization of the anchor installation equipment in included in the cost estimate.

Drainage - Geocomposite structural drain will be placed over the timber lagging (above the weep holes) prior

to placement of the cast-in-place concrete facia. Geocomposite will cover roughly 1,500 SF of wall

face. Weep holes will be installed at the toe of the wall (spaced at 8 ft).

Existing Wall Demolition - The existing wall will need to be demolished and removed from the site. We

estimate that at total of 14 HP14x89 piles (to a depth just below finished grade, i.e., 15 ft) and 25 CY of

structural concrete lagging will be removed from site, 310 CY of fill behind the existing wall will need to be

removed from site, and 30 CY of existing stone fill will need to be removed and stored, during below grade

lagging installation and replaced following lagging installation.

Based on the assumptions listed above, we estimate that the new soldier pile and lagging wall with tieback

anchors will cost approximately $780,000. This cost estimate does not consider highway design; traffic control

and/or traffic impacts; night shifts; or other structural design considerations not included in our scope. In addition,

the cost estimate does not include construction oversight. The basis for the unit costs used in this estimate is the


23

NYSTA Weighted Average Bid Prices for project lettings between April 18, 2015 and April 18, 201826, Vermont

Agency of Transportation’s 2 Year Averaged Price List27, as well as Golder’s recent project experience.

7.2 Construction Surcharges

Construction equipment cannot access the wall from below because additional surcharge from equipment and/or

an access road will reduce the stability of the slope to an unacceptable level and excavating a bench for

equipment to work on will reduce passive resistance required for lateral support of the existing wall. Accordingly,

additional loading at the top of slope in front of the wall and behind the top of the wall needs to be minimized

during construction. Any soils that are imported or are proposed to be reused, should not be stockpiled on the

slope or at current grades behind the top of the existing or new walls. Construction surcharges are allowed

behind the location of the new wall under the following restricted conditions:

1. Case A – Current Ground Surface Behind New Wall (EL 173 ft) Maintained During Construction -

No construction surcharges of any kind should be allowed at or behind the top of the existing wall until

soldier piles are installed and treated timber lagging is placed to a depth not to exceed 10 ft for the

adjacent segment of the new permanent wall. In order to install the solder piles and minimize additional

construction ground pressures behind the top of the current wall, we assumed that a pile driving rig could

drive soldier piles ahead of itself and a portion of the timber lagging for the new wall could be installed

prior to moving the rig behind the top of the new wall. This allows for lateral pressures from the

construction surcharges to be transferred to the new wall with minimal influence on the existing wall.

We assumed an allowable uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf can be applied behind the top

of the new wall after soldier piles are installed and timber lagging is placed for the new wall to a depth not

to exceed 10 ft. This 400 psf surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment distributed over roughly 20

ft x 20 ft area. The pile driving and/or anchor installation contractor will need to design crane mats to

withstand the weight of equipment proposed for this project. Construction surcharges should be kept to a

minimum whenever possible. The road must remain open during construction, so a 250 psf live load

surcharge will still be applied to the remaining travel lanes.

2. Case B: Excavation 20 ft Wide and 5 ft Deep (EL 168 ft) Made Behind New Wall Location -

A uniformly distributed construction surcharge load up to 400 psf can be placed at EL 168 ft (equal to a 5

ft excavation depth) behind the new wall location prior to excavation of materials below EL 168 ft between

the existing wall and the new wall. During excavations below El 168 ft in front of the new wall, surcharge

loads applied behind the new wall should not exceed 400 psf and should be setback at least 5 ft from the

back face of the wall. Prior to anchor load testing the new wall timber lagging and compacted engineered

backfill materials should be placed to El 173 ft to provide satisfactory passive soil resistance during

anchor load testing. Backfill material should meet the requirements of NYSDOT Standard Specification

Item No. 304.12, Subbase Course, Type II. This backfill material should be placed in 8 inch lifts and

compacted to 95% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T 99, Method C.

26 New York State Thruway Authority, (2018). “Weighted Average Bid Prices - Lettings 04/18/2015 Thru 4/18/2018,” accessed 9/17/2018.

https://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/consultants/estimator/wa-pb-english.pdf 27 Vermont Agency of Transportation, “2 Year Averaged Price List – ENGLISH, July 2015 – June 2017, 2011 Specifications,” accessed on

9/19/2018. http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/estimating/documents/2YearEnglishAveragedPriceList11.pdf

https://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/consultants/estimator/wa-pb-english.pdf


24

A uniformly distributed construction surcharge load up to 350 psf can be placed on the 6 ft wide bench between

the existing wall and the new wall only after soldier piles for the new wall are installed and treated timber lagging

is placed to a depth of 10 ft for the new wall, and the soil between the two walls is removed to a depth of 10 ft.

Alternate surcharge loading conditions, excavation configurations and/or construction sequencing may be

proposed by the contractor with supporting calculations prepared by a New York licensed professional engineer

demonstrating factors of safety for global stability and structural elements of the existing wall and new wall that

are acceptable to the NYSTA.

Considering the critical nature of the construction surcharge load applications during the different stages of wall

construction, we recommend that the contractor submit a construction sequence plan to the engineer for approval

at least 14 days before the start of any wall construction operation. The construction sequence plan should

describe the planned progressive sequence of work and the location and magnitude of surcharge loadings (with

supporting calculations) for the installation sequence for soldier piles, excavations, timber lagging, tieback

anchors (and testing), and permanent wall facing construction.

7.3 Fiber Optic Cable

As stated in previous report sections, an existing fiber optic junction box and cable that is located on the slope in

front of the wall as shown on Figure 2. The utility company flagged the location of the cable and C-M surveyed

the horizontal location, but the buried elevation of the cable is unknown. Based on the survey, the cable is

located between approximately 2 and 9 ft in front of the existing wall. C-M and the NYSTA have indicated that the

fiber optic cable will not be allowed to be moved for this project. Accordingly, all evaluations of alternative

stabilization options and the design of the recommended new wall assumed the fiber optic cable location was not

disturbed or changed during construction. During construction, the contractor should be made aware of and

made responsible for the protection of this cable during all phases of the work.

7.4 Permanent Lagging

The design and construction cost estimate assumes that permanent lagging will be installed as a cast-in-place

concrete facia. The concrete facia will be approximately 13 inches thick and extend 4 ft below design grade (19

ft) to cover the entire face of the timber lagging. Installation of precast panels is not recommended. Our analysis

assumes the piles will be driven to end bearing refusal on bedrock and it may be difficult to maintain tolerances

when driving though the existing rockfill that would be required to ensure that the precast panels can be installed

properly.

7.5 Soldier Pile Survey Monitoring During Construction

We recommend that the tops of the soldier piles be survey monitored (horizontal and vertical) at three stages of

wall construction: 1) immediately after initial installation; 2) after anchor testing; and 3) after full depth excavation

is achieved in front of the wall. All measurements should be made to a tolerance of 0.01 ft. The survey

measurements and calculated displacements relative to the initial and most recent measurement should be

summarized, plotted and transmitted to the NYSTA within two days of performing the survey.

7.6 Construction Observations

During wall construction we recommend a qualified geotechnical engineer be onsite full-time to monitor and

review the following:

Soldier pile installations.


25

Excavation at the wall face and lagging installations.

Tieback anchor installations and testing.

In addition, we recommend that Golder review all contractor submittals during construction for concurrence with

the intent of our design recommendations.

8.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical information, test results and foundation considerations included in this GDR are provided for the

exclusive use of C-M and NYSTA for specific application to the Stabilize Southeast Approach to Thruway Bridge

over Catskill Creek project at MP 113.22 in Catskill, New York. This GDR was prepared in accordance with

generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices conducted in the project region and under similar

financial and time constraints. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed

project are planned, Golder should be notified to review the appropriateness of our conclusions and

recommendations and to modify the recommendations as appropriate to reflect the changes in design. Further,

our analyses, and recommendations are based in part on the subsurface explorations completed. Golder should

be notified if conditions encountered during construction vary from those described in this report so that we may

re-evaluate, and if necessary, revise the recommendations made in this report.

The professional services provided by Golder for this project included only the geotechnical aspects of the

subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface and/or subsurface

contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the

site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this report and have not been

investigated or addressed.

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/29556g/deliverables/geotechnical design report/nysta response final/final stamped gdr feb 2019/catskill gdr final r2 ccb1 cjs1 mp2 mcm final.docx

TABLES

October 2018 Page 1 of 1 Project No: 18104049

Table 2:

Existing

Ground

Surface

Elevation 2

(ft)

Latitude2

Longitude2 Sample

Number

Sieve Minus

No. 200 (%)4

Natural

Moisture

Content (%)4

AASHTO Soil

Classification3,4

USCS Soil

Classification3,4

Rock Uniaxial

Compressive

Strength4

(psi)

SS1 1.1 - 3.0 - - 6.7 - - - - - -

SS2 3.0 - 5.0 - - 3.5 - - - - - -

SS3 8.0 - 10.0 4.9 2.1 A-1-a GW - -

SS4 13.0 - 15.0 - - 3.6 - - - - - -

SS5 18.0 - 20.0 - - 5.1 - - - - - -

SS6 23.0 - 25.0 - - 2.1 - - - - - -

SS7 28.0 - 30.0 7.8 4.1 A-1-a GP-GM - -

SS8 33.0 - 35.0 - - 5.0 - - - - - -

SS9 38.0 - 40.0 74.1 18.3 A-4 ML - -

SS10 43.0 - 45.0 - - 7.4 - - - - - -

R2P3 50.8 - 52.5 - - - - - - - - 17,441

R5P6 64.8 - 66.1 - - - - - - - - 14,723

SS1 1.3 - 2.8 - - 2.6 - - - - - -

SS2 3.0 - 5.0 - - 2.4 - - - - - -

SS3 8.0 - 10.0 - - 2.3 - - - - - -

SS4 13.0 - 15.0 4.8 3.7 A-1-a GW - -

SS5 18.0 - 20.0 - - 5.3 - - - - - -

SS6 23.0 - 25.0 - - 3.5 - - - - - -

SS7 28.0 - 30.0 - - 2.4 - - - - - -

SS8 33.0 - 35.0 - - 4.0 - - - - - -

SS9 38.0 - 40.0 23.9 5.7 A-1-b GM - -

SS10 43.0 - 45.0 40.3 15.9 A-4 ML - -

R1P2 46.2 - 47.1 - - - - - - - - 15,736

R2P7 54.7 - 55.6 - - - - - - - - 16,675

SS1 1.0 - 3.0 - - 3.2 - - - - - -

SS2 3.0 - 5.0 28.8 6.4 A-2-4 SM - -

SS3 8.0 - 10.0 - - 3.0 - - - - - -

SS4 13.0 - 15.0 - - 2.9 - - - - - -

SS5 18.0 - 20.0 13.0 6.8 A-1-a GM - -

SS6 23.0 - 25.0 - - 3.1 - - - - - -

SS7 28.0 - 30.0 - - 2.0 - - - - - -

SS8 33.0 - 35.0 - - 3.7 - - - - - -

SS9 38.0 - 40.0 - - 4.7 - - - - - -

SS10 43.0 - 45.0 - - 9.4 - - - - - -

SS11 48.0 - 50.0 68.5 13.9 A-4 ML - -

R1P1 50.7 - 51.9 - - - - - - - - 13,847

R2P4 62.8 - 64.8 - - - - - - - - 16,041

SS1 1.0 - 3.0 - - 5.4 - - - - - -

SS2 3.0 - 5.0 5.5 3.0 A-1-a GW-GM - -

SS3 8.0 - 10.0 - - 3.3 - - - - - -

SS4 13.0 - 15.0 - - 3.1 - - - - - -

SS5 18.0 - 20.0 - - 4.4 - - - - - -

SS6 23.0 - 25.0 - - 3.7 - - - - - -

SS7 28.0 - 30.0 - - 3.3 - - - - - -

SS8 33.0 - 35.0 - - 3.4 - - - - - -

SS9 38.0 - 40.0 - - 3.0 - - - - - -

SS10 43.0 - 45.0 16.5 7.3 A-1-b GM - -

SS11 48.0 - 50.0 - - 24.0 - - - - - -

SS12 53.0 - 55.0 37.1 12.9 A-4 ML - -

R1P1 56.0 - 56.6 - - - - - - - - 13,395

R1P13 60.6 - 61.3 - - - - - - - - 6,157

Notes:

Made by: KAR

Checked by: CJS

Reviewed by: MCM

4. Soil laboratory testing was performed by 3rd Rock LLC and rock laboratory testing was performed by GeoTesting Express. Complete laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C.

2. Boring locations were surveyed by Creighton Manning on August 14, 2018 and received by Golder on August 24, 2018.

3. AASHTO and USCS symbols assigned based on interpretation of laboratory test results.

1. Boring locations are shown in Figure 2 - "Boring Location Plan"

DNW-4 42.242416°N 73.893984°W

169.17

164.17

159.17

154.17

149.17

144.17

139.17

134.17

124.17

Elevation at

Midpoint of

Sample (ft)

Test Boring

Designation1

DNW-1

129.17

117.94

154.16

42.242253°N 73.893981°W

42.242356°N 73.894060°W

42.242322°N 73.893895°W

DNW-2 173.09

DNW-3 173.16

173.14

173.17

171.09

107.69

171.04

134.09

171.16

144.14

112.22

171.17

134.14

121.49

129.09

126.44

124.16

119.17

Summary of Laboratory Testing Results

Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report

Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

Milepost 113.22 Thruway Mainline, New York

Sample Depth

Below Ground

Surface (ft)

116.87

169.14

164.14

159.14

154.14

149.14

139.14

129.14

169.09

164.09

159.09

154.09

149.09

144.09

109.36

139.09

169.16

164.16

159.16

121.86

149.16

144.16

139.16

134.16

129.16

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/29556g/Deliverables/Geotechnical Design Report/DRAFT/Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results/Soil and rock test results table.xlsx

FIGURES

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE0

2018-09-18

RWC

KR

MCM

MSP 001

STABILIZE SE APPROACH TO THRUWAY BRIDGE OVER CATSKILL CREEKMILEPOST 113.22 THRUWAY MAINLINE, NEW YORKNYSTA PIN A72159

CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING LLP2 WINNERS CIRCLEALBANY, NY 12205

SITE LOCATION MAP TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

A

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Last

Edi

ted

By: r

clar

k D

ate:

201

8-10

-26

Tim

e:9:

53:4

4 AM

| P

rinte

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-3

1 T

ime:

9:25

:15

AMPa

th: \

\man

ches

ter\c

add\

NYS

TA\C

ATSK

ILL,

NY\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

8104

049_

Cat

skill

Cre

ek B

ridge

\480

0_C

atsk

ill\02

_PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\D

WG

\ |

File

Nam

e: 1

8104

049_

4800

_006

.dw

g

REFERENCE:

1.) BASEMAP TAKEN FROM U.S.G.S QUADRANGLE 7.5 QUADRANGLE OF CEMENTON, NEWYORK DATED 2018.

0

FEET

2000 4000

1'' = 4000'

SITE LOCATION

01 of 07

145

150155

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

C

C

C

C

C

C

115

DNW-1

DNW-3

DH-2

232

125

105

110

115

120

130

404550556065707580

859095100105110115

12012513013514

0145150155

160

165

170

70

75

8085

9095

100105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

X

XX

XX

XX

C

C

CC

CC

CC

C

50

50

75

7510

0

100

125

150

55

55

60

60

65

65

70

70

80

80

85

85

90

90

95

95

105

105

110

110

115

115

120

120

130

135

140

145

155

160

75

100

125

150

6065

70

80859095

105

110

115

120

130

135140145

DNW-1

DNW-2

DNW-3

DNW-4

ROS-2A

ROS-2B

ROS-2C

ROS-2DROS-2E

ROS-3

ROS-4

ROS-5

ROS-6

ROS-7

ROS-8

ROS-9

ROS-10

ROS-11

ROS-12

ROS-13

DH-1

DH-2

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

230

231

232

238

237

www.golder.com

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE

0020

Manchester, New Hampshire670 N. Commercial StreetManchester, NHU.S.A.(603) 668-08800 2018-09-18 DESCRIPTION RWCKR MCM MSP

02 07



BORING LOCATION PLAN TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

Path

: \\m

anch

este

r\cad

d\N

YSTA

\CAT

SKIL

L, N

Y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\181

0404

9_C

atsk

ill C

reek

Brid

ge\4

800_

Cat

skill\

02_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

0404

9_48

00_0

01.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-2

6 T

ime:

11:2

6:35

AM

| P

rinte

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-3

1 T

ime:

9:22

:56

AM

REV. DESCRIPTIONYYYY-MM-DD PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVEDDESIGNEDof

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

0

FEET

20 40

1'' = 20'

A

B

A'

B'

LEGEND

5 FT INDEX CONTOUR

1 FT INDEX CONTOUR

GUARDRAIL BEAM (LOCATION APPROXIMATE NOT SURVEYED)

TREELINE

GOLDER 2018 BORING LOCATIONSDNW-1

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

SUBSURFACE PROFILE LOCATION AND DIRECTIONA

REFERENCES

1. THE 2018 BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE WERE SURVEYED BY CREIGHTONMANNING ON AUGUST 14, 2018 AND RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 24, 2018.

2. SEE 2018 BORING LOGS FOR DETAILED LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS.

3. BEDROCK CONTOURS INTERPRETED FROM BOREHOLE DATA (GOLDER 2018; AND NYSTA, 1952 &1960), TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA (CREIGHTON MANNING, AUGUST 2018), AND LOCALGEOLOGIC REPORTS (CHADWICK, 1944; MARSHAK, 1986, 1990). ENCOUNTERED BEDROCKSURFACE ELEVATIONS WILL VARY AND BE MORE ERRATIC THAN SHOWN.

NOTES

EXISTING ROCK OUTCROP AREAS(GOLDER SITE VISIT AUGUST 2018)

5 FT INTERPRETED BEDROCK CONTOUR

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCEXX

EXISTING FIBEROPTIC CABLE (ELEVATION UNKNOWN)C C

XX

EXISTING SCARP

1. BASEMAP ELEMENTS FROM CREIGHTON MANNING DRAWING TITLED“118-161_map_cons_merged_3d.dgn”, RECEIVED BY GOLDER ON AUGUST 27, 2018.

2. BORINGS WERE LOCATED AND OBSERVED BY GOLDER AND DRILLED BY EARTHDIMENSIONS INC OF ELMA, NEW YORK FROM AUGUST 13-21, 2018.

3. HISTORICAL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM STATE OF NEWYORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BORING LOGS DATED 1952 AND 1960 AND DELEUW AND BRILL DRAWING DATED 1952 AND TITLED “PLAN AND PROFILE THRUWAY STA.379+00 TO STA. 394+00”.

4. EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE APPROXIMATE AND TAKEN FROM NEW YORK STATETHRUWAY AUTHORITY BRIDGE REHABILITATION PLANS DATED DEC. 1991 AND TITLED“GENERAL PLAN” AND “CONCRETE REPAIR DETAILS AND SOUTH/EAST APPROACH WALLPLAN AND DETAILS”.

5. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88).INSET OUTLINE

0

FEET

10 20

1'' = 10'

HISTORICAL BORING LOCATIONS237

ROCK OUTCROP SURVEY POINTSROS-9

HEAD SCARPS

EXISTING FIBEROPTIC CABLE

FIBER OPTICJUNCTION BOX

EDGE OFPAVEMENT

EXISTINGSIGN

CHAIN LINKFENCE

EXISTINGSOLDIER PILESLAGGING WALL

EXISTINGGUARD RAIL

U.S

. RT.

87

NO

RTH

BOU

ND

U.S

. RT.

87

SOU

THBO

UN

D

U.S

. RT.

87

NO

RTH

BOU

ND

U.S

. RT.

87

SOU

THBO

UN

D

U.S

. RT.

87

NO

RTH

BOU

ND

CATSKILL CREEK BRIDGE ABUTMENT

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

T)

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

T)

SECTION A-A'

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

0+00 1+00 2+00 2+25

SOLDIER PILES HP 14x89TOTAL LENGTH 35' (REF. 4)

2735

16

35

48

23

129

56

40

69

5933

14

12

58

27

58

95

56

52

62

4536

79

45

23

17

40

17

21

16

2276

54

17

22

35

27

99

91

63

R

EOB107.2'

EOB117.5'

EOB105.5'EOB

103.3'

GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM COMPACT TOCOMPACT, GRAVELLY SAND,NON-PLASTIC (SHALE ROCKFILL)

BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY TOGRAVELLY SILT, LOW PLASTICITY(GLACIAL TILL)

GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TOSLIGHTLY WEATHERED, MODERATELYHARD, FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE(HELDERBERG GROUP)

20' (

SEE

REF

. 4)

15'

1' OFASPHALT

9'-4"(SHOULDER)

12'(NB LANE)

13'(NB LANE)

22'(MEDIAN)

22'(MEDIAN)

13'(SB LANE)

12'(SB LANE)

9'-4"(SHOULDER)

56'-4" 56'-4"

DNW-154.0

DNW-243.7

DNW-320.0

DNW-413.8

RUN3 - 100%

RUN2 - 85%

RUN1 - 75%

RUN4 - 85%

RUN5 - 100%

RUN1 - 100%

RUN2 - 97%

RUN1 - 85%

RUN2 - 91%

RUN1 - 80%

RUN2 - 90%

75

EXISTING GUARDRAIL (TOBE REMOVED AND RESET)

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE (TO BEREMOVED TO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION)

EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING PRECASTCONCRETE LAGGING(REF. 4)

43.7 RT

13.8 RT 20.0 RT

54.0 RT(PIEZOMETERINSTALLED)

EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE(LOCATION APPROXIAMTE)

X

ANorthwest

A'Southeast

www.golder.com

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE

0030


03 07



INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A' TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

Path

: \\m

anch

este

r\cad

d\N

YSTA

\CAT

SKIL

L, N

Y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\181

0404

9_C

atsk

ill C

reek

Brid

ge\4

800_

Cat

skill\

02_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

0404

9_48

00_0

02.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-2

6 T

ime:

11:0

0:00

AM

| P

rinte

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-3

1 T

ime:

9:12

:04

AM


IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

0

FEET

10 20

1'' = 10'

NOTE(S)

LEGEND

ASPHALT

GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM COMPACT TO COMPACT, GRAVELLYSAND, NON-PLASTIC (SHALE AND SILTSTONE FILL)

BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY TO GRAVELLY SILT,LOW PLASTICITY (GLACIAL TILL)

GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TO SLIGHTLYWEATHERED, MODERATELY HARD, FOSSILIFEROUSLIMESTONE (HELDERBERG GROUP)

REFERENCE(S)





5. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD) OF 1988.

1. THE WATER TABLE SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE IS ESTIMATED FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTSDURING DRILLING AND ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS WILLVARY.



4. THIS GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE IS INTENDED TO CONVEY TRENDS INSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE ANDIDEALIZED, AND HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY INTERPRETATIONS OF WIDELY SPACEDEXPLORATIONS OF SAMPLES. ACTUAL SOIL AND ROCK TRANSITIONS MAY VARY AND AREPROBABLY MORE ERRATIC. FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REFER TO EXPLORATIONLOGS.

BORING LOCATION I.D.OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE

DNW-154 FT RT

EOB107.2 FT END OF BORING

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FT)(MEASURED IN BOREHOLE DURING DRILLING)

RUN1 - 75% ROCK CORE RUN NUMBER AND RQD

35 SPT: N - VALUE

ESTIMATED WATER LEVEL FOR DESIGN

EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE (ELEVATION UNKNOWN)

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

T)

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

T)

SECTION B-B'

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

0+00 1+00 1+50

DNW-126.7

DNW-2-14.1

DNW-326.9

DNW-4-14.0

EXISTINGGROUND

2735

16

35

48

23

129

56

40

69

4536

79

45

23

17

40

17

21

16

2276

54

99

91

63

5933

14

12

58

27

58

95

56

75

52

62

17

22

35

27

R

6'

20' (

APPR

OX.

)(S

EE R

EF. 4

)15

' (AP

PRO

X.)

24'80'

(LIMITS OF WALL)

SOUTH BRIDGEABUTMENT

GRAY, DRY, MEDIUMCOMPACT TOCOMPACT, GRAVELLYSAND, NON-PLASTIC(SHALE ROCKFILL)

BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEYTO GRAVELLY SILT, LOWPLASTICITY (GLACIAL TILL)

GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TOSLIGHTLY WEATHERED, MODERATELYHARD, FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE(HELDERBERG GROUP)

EOB107.2'

EOB117.5'

EOB105.5' EOB

103.3'

RUN3 - 100%

RUN2 - 85%

RUN1 - 75%

RUN4 - 85%

RUN5 - 100%

RUN1 - 85%

RUN1 - 100%

RUN1 - 80%

RUN2 - 97%RUN2 - 90%

RUN2 - 91%

14.1 LT

26.7 RT(PIEZOMETERINSTALLED)

26.9 RT

14.0 LT

C

C

C

C

CC C C C C C C C C C C

?

?? ? ? ?

EXISTING PRECASTCONCRETE LAGGING

SOLDIER PILES HP14x89 LENGTH 35FT(SEE REF. 4)

BSouthwest

B'Northeast

0

FEET

8 16

1'' = 8'

www.golder.com

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE

0040


04 07



INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE PROFILE B-B' TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

Path

: \\m

anch

este

r\cad

d\N

YSTA

\CAT

SKIL

L, N

Y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\181

0404

9_C

atsk

ill C

reek

Brid

ge\4

800_

Cat

skill\

02_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

0404

9_48

00_0

03.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-2

6 T

ime:

10:0

6:27

AM

| P

rinte

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-3

1 T

ime:

9:11

:14

AM


IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

NOTE(S)

LEGEND

ASPHALT

GRAY, DRY, MEDIUM COMPACT TO COMPACT, GRAVELLYSAND, NON-PLASTIC (SHALE ROCKFILL)

BROWN, MOIST, HARD, CLAYEY TO GRAVELLY SILT,LOW PLASTICITY (GLACIAL TILL)

GRAY, FINE-GRAINED, FRESH TO SLIGHTLYWEATHERED, MODERATELY HARD, FOSSILIFEROUSLIMESTONE (HELDERBERG GROUP)

REFERENCE(S)





5. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD) OF 1988.

1. THE WATER TABLE SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE IS ESTIMATED FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTSDURING DRILLING AND ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS WILLVARY.



4. THIS GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE IS INTENDED TO CONVEY TRENDS INSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE ANDIDEALIZED, AND HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY INTERPRETATIONS OF WIDELY SPACEDEXPLORATIONS OF SAMPLES. ACTUAL SOIL AND ROCK TRANSITIONS MAY VARY AND AREPROBABLY MORE ERRATIC. FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REFER TO EXPLORATIONLOGS.

ESTIMATED WATER LEVEL FOR DESIGN

EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE (ELEVATION UNKNOWN)C

BORING LOCATION I.D.OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE

DNW-154 FT RT

EOB107.2 FT END OF BORING

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FT)(MEASURED IN BOREHOLE DURING DRILLING)

RUN1 - 75% ROCK CORE RUN NUMBER AND RQD

35 SPT: N - VALUE

88' (LIMITS OF WALL)

1

4'MIN.

PERMANENT TIEBACKANCHOR (TYP.)

8'

EXISTING FIBEROPTIC CABLEELEVATIONUNKNOWN

INSTALL LAGGING TO 4'BELOW EXISTING GRADE

1

8'

?

? ? ? ??

TOP OF NEW WALL EL. 173'

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

BEDROCK

SOLDIER PILE ANDLAGGING WALL

HP SOLDIERPILE (TYP.)

12

MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADE INFRONT OF EXISTING WALL

15015

5

155

160

160 XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

C

CC C C C C C C C C C C C C

C

C

C

C

C

C

12512

5

115

115

12012

0

130

130

135

11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

8'(TYP.) 6'

9'4"

(SH

OU

LDER

)12

'(N

B LA

NE)

13'

(NB

LAN

E)22

'(M

EDIA

N)

88' (LIMITS OF WALL)

PROPOSED SOLDIERPILE & LAGGING WALL

REMOVE EXISTINGWALL TO EXISTINGGRADE IN FRONT OFWALL TO AID ININSTALLATION OFLAGGING

EXISTING FIBEROPTIC CABLE

PERMANENT TIEBACKANCHOR (TYP.)

ANC

HO

R L

ENG

TH V

ARIE

S BA

SED

ON

BED

RO

CK

ELEV

. (~6

0-80

' TYP

.)

HP SOLDIERPILE (TYP.)

www.golder.com

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE

0050


05 07



SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

Path

: \\m

anch

este

r\cad

d\N

YSTA

\CAT

SKIL

L, N

Y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\181

0404

9_C

atsk

ill C

reek

Brid

ge\4

800_

Cat

skill\

02_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

0404

9_48

00_0

04.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

019-

01-1

7 T

ime:

11:5

2:14

AM

| P

rinte

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

019-

01-1

7 T

ime:

11:5

2:26

AM


IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

002005

SCALE N.T.S. SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL PROFILE001005

SCALE N.T.S. SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL PLAN VIEW

5FT INTERPRETEDBEDROCK CONTOURS

6'

XX

X

15.9

'20

'

45°'

4' MIN.

19'

EXTE

ND

PIL

ES T

O B

EDR

OC

K

10' M

IN. B

OND

LEGTH IN

TO

ROCK

ANCHOR LENGTH VARIES BASED O

N BEDROCK ELEV. (6

0-80'

TYP.)

9'-4"(SHOULDER)

12'(NB. LANE)

13'(NB. LANE)

22'(MEDIAN)

56'-4"

EXISTING GROUND

BEDROCK

DESIGN GRADE

GLACIALTILL

ROCKFILL

EXISTING SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL (TOBE REMOVED TO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION)

24"PREAUGEREDHOLE

REMOVE &REPLACE FILLFOR LAGGINGINSTALLATION

NEW PERMANENTTIEBACK GROUNDANCHORS @ 8' O.C.10' INTO ROCK MIN.

NEW SOLDIER PILE & LAGGING WALL

EXISTING GUARDRAIL(TO BE REMOVED AND RESET)

EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE(TO BE REMOVED)

PILE

LEN

GTH

VAR

IES

BASE

D O

N B

EDR

OC

KEL

EVAT

ION

(45-

65 T

YP.)

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

ELEV

ATIO

N (F

T)

0+00 0+50 1+00

NEW HPSOLDIER PILE@ 8FT O.C. TO

BEDROCK

SEE NOTE 2

30°'

FIBER OPTIC CABLE DEPTH ANDLOCATION (VARIES (SEE NOTE 1))

19 FT = HEIGHT OF TIMBER LAGGING & PERMANENTCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FACING FOR PURPOSESOF WALL CONSTRUCTION (SEE NOTE 2).

PERMANENT CONCRETE WALL FACING

24.4

'

24.4 FT = DESIGN EXPOSED WALLHEIGHT FOR LONG TERM SLOPEGRADE IN FRONT OF NEW WALL

1. ELEVATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE UNKNOWN. LOCATION VARIES BETWEEN APPROX. 2-9FTIN FRONT OF WALL. APPROXIMATE ELEVATION SHOWN BASED ON EXPOSED CONDUIT ATUTILITY BOX AT NORTH END OF WALL.

2. LAGGING MAY BE EXTENDED DEEPER IN SURFICIAL SLOPE FAILURE OCCURS IN FRONT OFWALL.

NOTES:

001006

SCALE N.T.S. SOLDIER PILE & TIEBACK ANCHOR DETAIL

www.golder.com

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE

0060


06 07



SOLDIER PILE & TIEBACK ANCHOR DETAIL TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

Path

: \\m

anch

este

r\cad

d\N

YSTA

\CAT

SKIL

L, N

Y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\181

0404

9_C

atsk

ill C

reek

Brid

ge\4

800_

Cat

skill\

02_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

0404

9_48

00_0

05.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

019-

01-1

8 T

ime:

1:57

:02

PM |

Prin

ted

By: r

clar

k D

ate:

201

9-01

-18

Tim

e:2:

00:4

6 PM


IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

VARIES

3

15

8

NO LOAD ZONE

46

5 7 17

1

2

18

9

13

BOND LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR

ANCHOR LENGTH

12

1011

14

8

16

15

9

12

10

11

13

14

15

ANCHORAGE COVERANCHOR HEAD AND WEDGESANTICORROSION GREASEBEARING PLATETRUMPETSEAL AROUND TRUMPETANTICORROSION GREASEPVC OR POLYETHYLENE TUBEINDIVIDUALLY GREASED & SHEATHED STRANDSPACERSTRAND TENDONCORRUGATED PVCCENTRALIZERANCHOR GROUTENCAPSULATION GROUTEND CAPTENSION RING TO RESIST SPLITTING FORCE OFDEFLECTED STRANDSNON-STRUCTURAL FILLER

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.

18.

MINIMUM 10 FEET

STRAND UNBONDED LENGTH

01

in

181-04049CONTROLA

FIGURE0

2018-09-18

RWC

KR

MCM

MSP 007



EXAMPLE TIEBACK WITH DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTIONDETAIL

TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

A

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Last

Edi

ted

By: r

clar

k D

ate:

201

8-10

-31

Tim

e:8:

45:1

0 AM

| P

rinte

d By

: rcl

ark

Dat

e: 2

018-

10-3

1 T

ime:

10:0

6:23

AM

Path

: \\m

anch

este

r\cad

d\N

YSTA

\CAT

SKIL

L, N

Y\99

_PR

OJE

CTS

\181

0404

9_C

atsk

ill C

reek

Brid

ge\4

800_

Cat

skill\

02_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

0404

9_48

00_0

07.d

wg

001007

SCALE N.T.S. TIEBACK WITH DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION DETAIL

A007

SCALE N.T.S. SECTION B007

SCALE N.T.S. SECTION

A

A'007

007

B

B'007

007

07 of 07

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

D - NPL

D - NPL

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

6.7%

3.5%

2.1%

3.6%

5.1%

2.1%

20

21

8

13

10

14

19

21

31

37

9

10

16

18

11

18

25

9

11

17

5

17

23

14

11

25

6

100/3

17

27

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

Dark gray asphalt pavement

1.1-2.5' Dark gray to brownish gray (SAND) fill with 10 to20% mostly angular gravel, trace silt, dense, massive soilstructure, (SM).2.5-3.0' Brown (SILTY-SAND) fill with 5 to 15% gravel,some silt, compact, massive soil structure, (SM).3.0-3.5' Same as 1.1-2.5'3.5-5.0' Mostly gray shale and siltstone stone fragment(SANDY GRAVEL) fill with little sand, trace silt and anoccasional cobble or channer, medium compact tocompact, (GW-GM).

Same as 3.5-5.0'

Same as 3.5-5.0'

Same as 3.5-5.0'

Same as 3.5-5.0'

DATE START 8/15/2018 DATE FINISH 8/17/2018

HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.

AlbanyGreeneA72159Thruway Mainline113.22Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek

in

in

Andrew KempistyKyle Shearing

HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR

BLOWS ONSAMPLER (in.)

The subsurface information shown here was obtained for designand estimate purposes. It is made available so that users may haveaccess to the same information available to the State. It ispresented in good faith. By the nature of the exploration process,the information represents only a small fraction of the total volumeof the material at the site. Interpolation between data samples maynot be indicative of the actual material encountered.

24

SHEET 1 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8

ftSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG

NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITYNEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION

HOLELINESTA

OFFSETSURF. ELEV. 173.14,

DNW-1SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING

WT OF HAMMER-SAMPLER

HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12

126DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND ROCK

18

CONTRACT

33.80DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


0.0

0

6

COORDINATES

DRILL RIG OPERATORSOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION

5513219BINSTRUCTURE NAMEThruway over Catskill Creek

D214619

PSNDIVISIONCOUNTYPINROUTEMILEPOSTPROJECT

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

3-1/2

2 Safety

4 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER

So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

M - LPL

-

M - LPL

- -

4.1%

5.0%

18.3%

7.4%

18

16

19

19

48

25

43

20

92

27

19

31

37

29

21

38

23

21

22

65

2.8

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

RUN1

Same as 3.5-5.0'

Same as 3.5-5.0'

38.0-38.5' Same as 3.5-5.0'38.5-40.0' Brown (CLAYEY-SILT) with 0 to 3% gravel, littleto some clay, trace organic matter, hard, weakly thinlylaminated with very thin coarse silt lenses, (ML-CL).

43.0-47.1 Brown (CLAYEY-SILT) with 10 to 20%gravel, little clay, trace sand, hard, massive soil structure,(ML-CL).

47.1 Top of Bedrock47.5 Switched boring method to coring with a NQ-2 sizedouble tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit.Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 47.5-50.3'Gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbeds,limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 2 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-1SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

33.80DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


25.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

-

-

-

4.5

3.0

2.2

7.2

RUN2

RUN3

RUN4

RUN5

Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard, predominantlycalcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly laminated to thinlybedded, slightly fractured horizontally alond bedding planes,core pieces range from (0.05-0.68'), not weathered, corebreaks appear fresh, occasional fossil, gray chert interbedfrom 47.5 to 47.8 feet.

Recovery: 2.8'/2.8' = 100%RQD: 2.1'/2.8' = 75%Number of Pieces total: 9Run #2: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 50.3-54.8'Gray limstone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard, predominantlycalcite, fine grained, smooth, thickly laminated to thicklybedded, slightly fractured along bedding planes, corepieces range from (0.05-1.6'), not weathered, core breaksappear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 4.5'/4.5' = 100%RQD: 3.8'/4.5' = 85%Number of Pieces total: 10Run #3: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 54.8-57.8'Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching indilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thicklylaminated to thickly bedded, slightly fractured along beddingplanes, core pieces range from (0.05-0.9'), not weathered,core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 3.0'/3.0' = 100%RQD: 3.0'/3.0' = 100%Number of Pieces total: 6Run #4: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 57.8-60.4'Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching indilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thicklylaminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured along beddingplanes, core pieces range from (0.1-0.5'), not weathered,core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 2.2'/2.6' = 85%RQD: 2.2'/2.6' = 85%Number of Pieces total: 8Run #5: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 60.4-67.6'Gray limestone bedrock, efferevesces without etching indilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thicklylaminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured along beddingplanes, core pieces range from (0.15-1.3'), not weathered,core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 7.2'/7.2' = 100%RQD: 7.2'/7.2' = 100%


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 3 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-1SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

33.80DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


50.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


55.0

60.0

65.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot intervalsampling to 47.5 feet. Removed NWJ-rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 47.5.Continued below with a NQ-2 size double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to coringcompletion at 67.6 feet. Installed a 2-inch PVC standpipe piezometer to 57.5 feet in completedbore hole.

Note: Lost approximately 800 to 1,000 gallons of water to formation.

Note: Bailed approximately five gallons of water between 1:52 am and 2:51 am on August 21,2018

PIEZOMETER AND BORE HOLE DETAILS00.0-47.5' 8-inch diameter bore hole47.5-67.5' 3-inch diameter core hole67.5-57.5' crushed stone fill57.5-42.5' 0.010 slot 2-inch PVC screen57.5-40.5' #00N size morie sand pack40.5-36.5' bentonite seal36.5-36.0' #00N size morie sand pack36.0-26.0' cement bentonite grout mixture42.5-00.3' 2-inch schedule 40 PVC riser26.0-01.1' crushed stone mixed with cuttings01.1-00.0' concrete8-inch diameter roadbox installed at ground surface

16-Aug-18

16-Aug-18

17-Aug-18

20-Aug-18

21-Aug-18

02:36

22:34

01:47

23:16

03:00

47.50

57.50

67.60

67.60

67.60

47.50

47.50

67.60

57.50

57.50

None

33.80

36.90

45.90

56.20

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Number of PIeces total: 10BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 67.60 ft


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 4 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-1SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

33.80DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242253°N (Long) 73.893981°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

CASINGDATE TIME

ARTESIANHEAD HEIGHT

ABOVE GROUNDHOLE WATER

FILLED WITHWATER AT

END OF DAY

DEPTH (ft.)

ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET

PSN ___________________________________

PIN ___________________________________

BIN ___________________________________ Depth From__________to__________

Project _________________________________ Number of Runs _________________

_______________________________________ Core Size _______________________

Date Evaluated ____________________ Evaluator (s) _________________________

Top of Rock _______________ (Depth) _______________ (Elevation)

Top of Sound Rock _______________ (Depth) ______________ (Elevation)

Comments ________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

RUN #1 Run Length ______________ Depth Range: From __________ To __________

RQD __________ (as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________

Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________

Mineralogy, Grain Size, & Texture _____________________________________________________________

Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________

Size Range of Pieces ________________________________________________________________________

Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments _______________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3

EB 15-025

A72159

5513219

Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway

Bridge over Catskill Creek

Kyle Shearing & Karen Roth

47.5 67.6

5

NQ-2

08/15/2018

47.1

47.5

2.8 47.5 50.3

2.1

Predominantly gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbeds

Predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth

Thickly laminated to thinly bedded

Slightly fractured horizontally along bedding planes

0.05-0.68'

Moderately hard

Not weathered, core breaks appear fresh

Occasional fossil, gray chert interbed from 47.5-47.8'

Rec: 2.8 or 100%

Number of core pieces - 9

75

Limestone, effervesces without etching in dilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid

Boring ID ______________________

Surface Elevation_________________

DNW-1

ROCK CORE EVALUATION SHEET (CONTINUED)

PSN _________________ PIN ____________________________ Boring ID __________________

RUN # __________ Run Length _____________ Depth Range: From _____________ to_____________

RQD __________ (as measured) _________ % Photo(s) ______________________________

Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 3

EB 15-025

A72159 DNW-1

2 4.5 50.3 54.8

3.8

Predominantly gray



Slightly fractured along bedding planes

0.05-1.6'

Moderately hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 4.5 or 100%


3 3.0 54.8 57.8

3.0

Predominantly gray





Occasional fossil

Rec: 3.0 or 100%


85



100

0.05-0.9'

Moderately Hard


PSN _________________ PIN ____________________________ Boring ID __________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3

EB 15-025

A72159 DNW-1

4 2.6 57.8 60.4

2.2

Predominantly gray




0.01-0.5'

Moderately hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 2.2 or 85%


5 7.2 60.4 67.6

7.2 100

Predominantly gray




0.15-1.3'

Moderately hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 7.2 or 100%


85



D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

2.6%

2.4%

2.3%

3.7%

5.3%

3.5%

12

12

14

15

16

16

42

33

24

8

11

42

23

28

25

13

7

29

13

51

20

10

10

16

5

19

13

10

2

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

0.0-1.3' Dark gray asphalt pavement1.3-2.8' Gray to grayish brown gravelly (SAND) fill with 30to 50% mostly angular gravel, trace silt, dense, (SP).

Dark gray to gray shale and siltstone stone fragment fill(SANDY GRAVEL) medium compact to compact, littlesand, trace silt with an occasional cobble or channer,(occasional thin 1-3" moist to wet zones).

Same as 3.0-5.0'

Same as 3.0-5.0'

Same as 3.0-5.0'

Same as 3.0-5.0'


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 1 OF 3

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-2SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

No WaterDEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE

Golder Associates Inc

0.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242356°N (Long) 73.894060°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

M - LPL

-

M - LPL

- -

2.4%

4.0%

5.7%

15.9%

15

11

9

17

11

12

7

3

13

9

12

3

27

8

9

13

52

14

19

100/3

7.8

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

RUN1

Same as 3.0-5.0'

Same as 3.0-5.0'

Note: Drilling was difficult between 37.0 and 37.5 feet.

Grayish brown (SILTY GRAVEL) fill with some silt,little sand and clay, medium compact, massive soilstructure, (ML-CL),(GM).

Note: Drilling much softer below 41.0 feet.

Brown (SANDY SILT) with 20 to 30% gravel,some sand, trace to little clay, firm to stiff, massive soilstructure, (ML-CL).

45.6' Switched boring method to coring with a NQ-2 sizedouble tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit.Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 45.6-53.4'Gray with an occasional thin reddish brown interbedlimestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%Hydrochloric Acid, hard, predominantly calcite, fine grained,smooth, thickly laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fracturedalong bedding planes with occasional areas with multiplehigh angle fractures at 47.1 to 47.3 and 48.3 to 48.5 feet,core pieces range from (0.03-0.9'), not weathered, core


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 2 OF 3

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-2SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT


in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


25.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242356°N (Long) 73.894060°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot intervalsampling. Removed NWJ rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 45.6 feet. Continuedbelow with a NQ-2 size double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to coring completion at55.6 feet. Bore hole was backfilled with cuttings and crushed stone fill to 1.3 feet and groundsurface repaired with a concrete patch.

Note: Used approximately 500 gallons of water while coring.

Note: No water at completion after pulling augers.

Note: Bentonite seal caved inside augers at 41.0 feet.

2.2RUN2

13-Aug-18

13-Aug-18

14-Aug-18

11:00

13:45

07:00

45.60

55.60

55.60

45.60

45.60

45.60

No Water

No Water

No Water

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 7.8'/7.8' = 100%RQD: 6.6'/7.8' = 85%Number of Pieces total: 17

Run #2 NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 53.4-55.6'Gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbed, limestonebedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%Hydrochloric Acid, hard, predominantly calcite, fine grained,smooth, thickly laminated to thinly bedded, slightly fracturedalong bedding planes, core pieces range from (0.03-1.0'),not weathered, core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 2.2'/2.2' = 100%RQD: 2.0'/2.2' = 91%Number of Pieces total: 7BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 55.60 ft


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 3 OF 3

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-2SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT


in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


50.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


55.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242356°N (Long) 73.894060°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

CASINGDATE TIME

ARTESIANHEAD HEIGHT


FILLED WITHWATER AT

END OF DAY

DEPTH (ft.)


PSN ___________________________________ Boring ID ______________________

PIN ___________________________________ Surface Elevation_________________

BIN ___________________________________ Depth From__________to__________


_______________________________________ Core Size _______________________




Comments ________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 2

EB 15-025

A72159

5513219




DNW-2

45.6 55.6

2

NQ-2

08/13/2018

44.7

45.6

7.8 45.6 53.4

6.6 85


Predominantly gray with an occasional thin reddish brown interbed



Slightly fractured along bedding planes with occasional multiple high angle fractures at 47.1-47.3 and 48.3-48.5'

0.03-0.9'

Hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 7.8 or 100%



PSN _________________ PIN ____________________________ Boring ID __________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________


RQD __________ (as measured) _________ % Photo(s)

______________________________

Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 2

EB 15-025

A72159 DNW-2

2 2.2 53.4 55.6

2.0 91


Predominantly gray with occasional thin reddish brown interbed




0.03-1.0'

Hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 2.2 or 100%


D - NPL

D - NPL

M - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

M - PL

-

D - NPL

3.2%

6.4%

3.0%

2.9%

6.8%

3.1%

18

8

9

10

7

11

17

10

12

12

13

10

12

39

46

9

14

8

10

37

8

8

100/5

14

11

8

13

9

13

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

Gray asphalt pavement.

1.0-2.7' Dark gray gravelly (SILTY-SAND) fill with 20 to40% mostly angular gravel, trace to little silt, compact,massive soil structure, (SM).2.7-3.0' Brown (SILTY-SAND) fill with 5 to 15% gravel,occasional cobble, little to some silt, trace clay, compactto very dense, massive soil structure, (SM).Brown (SILTY-SAND) fill with 15 to 25% gravel, occasionalcobble, some silt, trace clay, compact to very dense,massive soil structure, (SM).

Gray mostly shale and siltstone stone fragment fill(SANDY GRAVEL) medium compact to compact, littlesand, trace silt with an occasional cobble or channer.

Same as 8.0-10.0'

Dark gray to gray mostly shale and siltstone stonefragment fill (SANDY GRAVEL) medium compact tocompact, little sand, little silt with an occasional cobble orchanner.

Same as 8.0-10.0'


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 1 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-3SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

46.40DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


0.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

M - PL

-

M - PL

2.0%

3.7%

4.7%

9.4%

13.9%

11

14

9

16

24

49

20

15

33

13

24

15

39

65

28

11

12

60

26

35

21

19

20

16

32

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

SS11

Same as 8.0-10.0'

Same as 8.0-10.0'

Same as 8.0-10.0'

Grayish brown (CLAYEY-SILT) with 5 to 10% gravel,some clay, little to some sand, hard, weakly thinly laminatedwith very thin coarse silt lenses, (CL).

Same as 43.0-45.0'


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 2 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-3SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

46.40DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


25.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

- - -

-

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot intervalsampling 50.7 feet. Removed NWJ rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 50.7 feet.Continued below with a NQ-2 size double tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit to coringcompletion at 69.9 feet.

10

9.1

RUN1

RUN2

Top of BedrockRun #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 50.7-60.7'Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching indilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thicklylaminated, slighty fractured along bedding planes, corepieces range from (0.07-2.25'), not weathered, core breaksappear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 10.0'/10.0' = 100%RQD: 10.0'/10.0' = 100%Number of core pieces: 10

Run #2: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 60.7-69.9'Gray limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching indilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thicklylaminated to thinly bedded, slightly fratcured along beddingplanes, core pieces range from (0.2-3.4'), not weathered,core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil.

Recovery: 9.1'/9.2' = 99%RQD: 8.9'/9+.2' = 97%Number of core pieces: 8

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 69.90 ft


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 3 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-3SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

46.40DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


50.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


55.0

60.0

65.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

20-Aug-18

21-Aug-18

14:14

05:41

50.70

69.90

50.70

50.70

No Water

46.40

No

No

No

Yes


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 4 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-3SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

46.40DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242322°N (Long) 73.893895°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

CASINGDATE TIME

ARTESIANHEAD HEIGHT


FILLED WITHWATER AT

END OF DAY

DEPTH (ft.)


PSN ___________________________________ Boring ID ______________________


BIN ___________________________________ Depth From__________to__________


_______________________________________ Core Size _______________________




Comments ________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 2

EB 15-025

A72159

5513219




DNW-3

50.7 69.9

2

NQ-2

08/21/2018

50.3

50.7

10.0 50.7 60.7

10.0 100


Gray


Thickly laminated


0.07-2.25'

Moderately hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 10.0 or 100%



PSN _________________ PIN ____________________________ Boring ID __________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



______________________________

Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 2

EB 15-025

A72159 DNW-3

2 9.2 60.7 69.9

8.9 97


Gray




0.2-3.4'

Moderately hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 9.1 or 99%


D - NPL

D - NPL

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

5.4%

3.0%

3.3%

3.1%

4.4%

3.7%

18

16

6

8

12

13

22

35

8

6

13

20

24

16

7

4

26

15

35

17

7

8

32

12

32

17

18

4

21

14

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

Dark gray asphalt pavement.

1.0-2.0' Gray very gravelly (SAND) fill with 40 to 60%mostly angular gravel, trace silt, dense, massive soilstructure, (SM),(GM).2.0-3.0' Brown gravelly (SANDY-SILT) fill with 10 to 25%gravel, little to some sand, trace clay, very dense,massive soil structure, (ML).3.0-3.2' Same as 2.0-3.0'3.2-5.0' Gray shale and siltstone stone fragment (SANDYGRAVEL) fill with some sand, trace silt, mediumcompact to compact, with an occasional cobble or channer,(GW-GM).

Same as 3.2-5.0'

Same as 3.2-5.0'

Same as 3.2-5.0'

Same as 3.2-5.0'


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 1 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-4SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

44.70DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


0.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

D - NPL

-

D - NPL

-

M - NPL

-

M - NPL

-

M - PL

3.3%

3.4%

3.0%

7.3%

24.0%

13

14

13

16

21

61

60

33

41

20

39

62

31

56

22

19

33

25

19

30

9

32

24

17

34

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

SS11

Same as 3.2-5.0'

Same as 3.2-5.0'

Dark gray shale and siltstone (SANDY GRAVEL) fill withsome sand, little silt, trace clay, very dense, massive soilstructure, (Gw-GM).

43.0-44.5' Dark gray shale and siltstone fragment(SANDY GRAVEL) fill with 40 to 60% mostly shale stonefragment fill, trace to little sand, trace clay, very dense,massive soil structure, (ML).44.5-45.0' Brown gravelly (CLAYEY SILT) with 20 to 30%gravel, little to some clay, little sand, hard, massive soilstructure, (ML-CL). M - LPL

Brown faintly mottled (CLAYEY-SILT) with 0 to 5% gravel,some clay, trace sand, hard, massive soil structure, (CL).


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 2 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-4SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

44.70DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


25.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

-

M - LPL

-

-

-

12.9% 231032

3027

Note: Advanced bore hole with 4 1/4" ID x 8" OD hollow stem auger casing with 5.0-foot intervalsampling to 56.0 feet. Removed NWJ rods and installed 3" flush joint threaded casing to 56.0feet. Continued below with a NQ-2 size doubled tubed wireline core barrel with diamond bit tocoring completion at 66.0 feet. Bore hole was backfilled with cuttings and crushed stone fill to 1.0feet below ground surface and ground surface repaired with a concrete patch upon completion.

7.6

1.8

SS12

RUN1

RUN2

Brown (GRAVELLY SILT) with 20 to 40% gravel, somesand, little clay, hard, massive soil structure, (ML-CL).

Run #1: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 56.0-64.0'Predominantly gray with an occasional thin dark grayinterbed, limestone bedrock, effervesces without etching indilute 5% Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard,predominantly calcite, fine grained, smooth, thicklylaminated to thinly bedded, slightly fractured along beddingplanes, core pieces range from (0.05-2.0'), not weathered,core breaks appear fresh, occasional fossil, occasionalslight iron staining, void from 58.9 to 59.3 feet, occasionalnear vertical fractures from 59.3 to 59.5, 60.3 to 60.6, and62.5 to 64.0 feet, healed vertical fracture from 60.6 to 61.8feet.

Recovery: 7.6'/8.0' = 95%RQD: 6.4'/8.0' = 80%Number of core pieces - 16

Run #2: NQ-2 size diamond core barrel 64.0-66.0'Predominantly gray with occasional thin dark gray interbedslimestone bedrock, effervesces without etching in dilute 5%Hydrochloric Acid, moderately hard, predominantly calcite,fine grained, smooth, thickly laminated to thinly bedded,slightly fractured along bedding planes, core pieces rangefrom (0.35-1.2'), not weathered, core breaks appear fresh,occasional fossil, occasional near vertical fracture from 65.5to 65.8 feet, near vertical fracture cracked but not brokenfrom 64.0 to 64.9 feet.

Recovery: 1.8'/2.0' = 90%RQD: 1.8'/2.0' = 90%Number of core pieces - 3BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 66.00 ft


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 3 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-4SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

44.70DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


50.0

0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


55.0

60.0

65.0

3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

14-Aug-18

14-Aug-18

15-Aug-18

15-Aug-18

10:57

12:53

06:58

09:42

45.00

56.00

56.00

66.00

43.00

56.00

56.00

56.00

44.70

54.50

48.70

48.80

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes


HAMMER FALL-CASING

HAMMER FALL-SAMPLER

lb

lb

CA

SIN

GB

LO

WS

/ft

AUGER

CASING

SAMPLER

O. D.

O. D.

I. D.

I. D.


in

in


HOLE DN-W

Ro

ck R

eco

very

(ft.

)

INSPECTOR

18

CONTRACTOR



24

SHEET 4 OF 4

in

in3

1-3/8



HOLELINESTA


DNW-4SM 282 E 12/02

DN-WBORNUM

WT OF HAMMER-CASING


HAMMER TYPE

Karen Roth

30140

SA

MP

LE

NO

. MOIST.CONT.

(%)

12


18

CONTRACT

44.70DEPTH TO WATER

in

in

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

BE

LO

WS

UR

FA

CE


0

6

COORDINATES



D214619


3-1/2

2 Safety


So

il R

eco

very

(in

.)

(Lat) 42.242416°N (Long) 73.893984°W

TW

Y-C

AN

SU

BS

UR

F E

XP

LOR

AT

ION

4H

18.G

PJ

TW

YS

E1T

MP

L_V

05.G

DT

10

/24/

18

CASINGDATE TIME

ARTESIANHEAD HEIGHT


FILLED WITHWATER AT

END OF DAY

DEPTH (ft.)


PSN ___________________________________ Boring ID ______________________


BIN ___________________________________ Depth From__________to__________


_______________________________________ Core Size _______________________




Comments ________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 2

EB 15-025

A72159

5513219




DNW-4

56.0 66.0

2

NQ-2

08/15/2018

56.0

56.0

8.0 56.0 64.0

Occasional near vertical fractures at 59.3 to 59.5, 60.3 to 60.6, 62.5 to 64.0, and 65.5 to 65.8 feet.

Near vertical fracture cracked, but not broken from 64.0 to 64.9 feet. Healed vertical fracture from 60.6 to 61.8

6.4 80


Predominantly gray with an occasional thin dark gray interbed




0.05-2.0'

Moderately hard

Not weathered, core break appear fresh

Occasional fossil, occasional slight iron staining, void from 58.9 to 59.3 feet

Rec: 7.6 or 95%

feet.



PSN _________________ PIN ____________________________ Boring ID __________________



Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures __________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________



______________________________

Rock Type ________________________________________________________________________________

Color ____________________________________________________________________________________


Bedding __________________________________________________________________________________

Fractures _________________________________________________________________________________


Hardness __________________________________________________________________________________

Weathering ________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 2

EB 15-025

A72159 DNW-4

2 2.0 64.0 66.0

1.8 90


Predominantly gray with occasional thin dark gray interbeds




0.35-1.2'

Moderately hard


Occasional fossil

Rec: 1.8 or 90%


APPENDIX B

ROCK CORE PHOTOS

October 2018 Project No.: 18104049

APPENDIX B

Rock Core Photos



NYSTA PIN A72159

Row 1 = DNW-1 Run 1: 47.5 - 50.3 ft-bgs.Rows 1,2 = DNW-1 Run 2: 50.3 - 54.8 ft-bgs.Rows 2,3 = DNW-1 Run 3: 54.8 - 57.8 ft-bgs.

Row 3 = DNW Run 4: 57.8 - 60.4 ft-bgsRows 3,4 = DNW Run 5: 60.4 - 67.6 ft-bgs

1 of 4


APPENDIX B

Rock Core Photos



NYSTA PIN A72159

Rows 1,2 = DNW-2 Run 1: 45.6 - 53.4 ft-bgs.Row 3 = DNW-2 Run 2: 53.4 - 55.6 ft-bgs.

2 of 4


APPENDIX B

Rock Core Photos



NYSTA PIN A72159

Row 1 = DNW-1 Run 5: 60.4 - 67.6 ft-bgs.Rows 1,2,3 = DNW-3 Run 1: 50.7 - 60.7 ft-bgs.Rows 3,4 = DNW-3 Run 2: 60.7 - 69.9 ft-bgs.

3 of 4


APPENDIX B

Rock Core Photos



NYSTA PIN A72159

Row 1,2 = DNW-2 Run 1: 45.6 - 53.4 ft-bgs.Row 2 = DNW-2 Run 2: 53.4 - 55.6 ft-bgs.

Row 3,4 = DNW-4 Run 1: 56.0 - 64.0 ft-bgs.Row 4 = DNW-4 Run 2: 64.0 - 66.0 ft-bgs.

4 of 4

APPENDIX CLABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Project:

Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc.Project No.: 18-001Borehole No.: DNW-1801Date of Report Cover: 09/25/18

Summary of Testing

Laboratory ID Number Sample Number/Name Requested Analysis

18-620 S3 Grain Size18-621 S7 Grain Size18-622 S9 Grain Size18-632 Run 2, Piece 3 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)18-633 Run 5, Piece 6 UCS and Elastic Moduli(Rock)Notes: UCS and Elastic Moduli performed by GeoTesting Express

NYSTA Catskill Creek Bridge (SE Approach)

3rd Rock, LLC580 Olean Road

East Aurora, NY 14052(716)655.4933

www.soilstesting.com

3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY

(no specification provided)*

PL= LL= PI=

USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-620

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.081.063.844.837.327.922.613.7

9.37.46.55.85.34.9

GW

30.3395 27.3858 17.811014.5423 6.9955 2.40691.0237 17.40 2.68

Used entire amount provided for Grain Size testing.

8/28/18 9/18/18

JJZ

JMA

LM

Earth Dimensions, Inc.

4H18

18-001

Material Description

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)

Classification

Coefficients

Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Date Sampled:Source of Sample: 4H18Sample Number: DNW-1801, S3

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

TEST RESULTS (D6913)

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?

Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 36.2 41.2 8.9 6.3 2.5 4.9

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00

Particle Size Distribution Report

3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-621

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.082.572.356.748.938.832.621.614.911.610.1

9.08.47.8

30.5439 27.1067 13.92889.9545 4.1043 0.86840.2415 57.66 5.01

Used entire amount provided for testing.

8/28/18


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 27.7 39.7 11.0 10.0 3.8 7.8

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-622

1".75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.084.882.580.779.178.076.875.975.374.974.674.374.1

21.4907 19.1450


8/28/18 9/18/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 15.2 6.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 74.1

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


Client: 3rd Rock LLC

Project Name: Catskill, Thruway

Project Location: ---

GTX #: 308761

Test Date: 9/12/2018

Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1801

Sample ID: 18-632 Run1, Piece 3

Depth, ft: ---

Sample Type: rock core

Sample Description:

Peak Compressive Stress: 17,441 psi

Notes: Test specimen tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.

The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.

Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio calculated using the tangent to the line in the stress range listed.

Calculations assume samples are isotropic, which is not necessarily the case.

Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock

by ASTM D7012 - Method D

Stress Range, psi Young's Modulus, psi Poisson's Ratio

The axial strain values recorded for this test produce values of Poisson's Ratio that exceed maximum values found in rocks.

One axial strain gauge failed to record meaningful data.

See photographs

Intact material failure

---

6400-11000 219,000,000 ---

11000-15700 239,000,000

1700-6400 118,000,000

---

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain

Lateral Strain Axial Strain




GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1801

Sample ID: 18-632; Run1, Piece 3

Depth, ft: ---

After cutting and grinding

After break




GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1801

Sample ID: 18-633 Run 5, Piece 6

Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:









See photographs


0.19

5400-9300 7,020,000 0.23

9300-13300 6,860,000

1500-5400 6,370,000

0.25

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1801

Sample ID: 18-633; Run 5, Piece 6

Depth, ft: ---


After break

Project:


Summary of Testing





East Aurora, NY 14052(716)655.4933


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-623

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.075.055.841.335.328.724.215.510.1

7.66.45.65.24.8

GW

32.1276 29.5973 20.430616.9087 6.9075 1.87770.8291 24.64 2.82

Used both jars provided for Grain Size testing.

8/28/18 9/18/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 44.2 31.6 8.7 7.9 2.8 4.8

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-624

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.080.269.562.350.044.241.334.530.227.726.325.224.523.9

31.2187 28.1696 11.95799.5250 0.8090


8/28/18 9/18/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 30.5 28.2 6.8 6.8 3.8 23.9

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-62

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.090.388.485.081.075.071.462.455.350.847.844.742.540.3

24.7295 12.6705 1.52820.3707

Used entire sample provided for testing.

8/28/18 9/20/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 11.6 17.0 9.0 11.6 10.5 40.3

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1802


Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:






See photographs


---

5800-10000 --- ---

10000-14200 ---

1600-5800 ---

---




Both axial and lateral strain gauges failed to record meaningful data. Strain data could not be displayed.

No Graph Available




GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1802


Depth, ft: ---


After break




GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1802


Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:









See photographs


0.16

6100-10500 8,160,000 0.21

10500-15000 7,190,000

1700-6100 6,330,000

0.21

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1802


Depth, ft: ---


After break

Project:


Summary of Testing





East Aurora, NY 14052(716)655.4933


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-626

1".75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.092.987.184.377.974.365.157.546.943.237.933.028.8

16.2218 10.1444 1.04960.5334 0.0833


8/28/18 9/20/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 7.1 18.6 9.2 18.2 18.1 28.8

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-627

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.088.074.656.147.337.132.122.817.615.414.413.713.413.0

26.7662 23.6446 13.999010.4911 4.0892 0.3548


8/28/18 9/21/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 25.4 42.5 9.3 7.4 2.4 13.0

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-628

.75".5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.099.196.594.291.985.880.176.173.971.670.068.5

3.7051 1.7648


8/28/18 9/20/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 8.1 6.1 9.7 7.6 68.5

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1803


Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:









One axial strain gauge failed to record meaningful data. Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio reported based on results of a

single axial strain gauge.

See photographs


0.26

5100-8700 4,470,000 0.15

8700-12400 2,750,000

1400-5100 9,020,000

0.10

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1803


Depth, ft: ---


After break




GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1803


Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:









See photographs


0.44

5900-10200 14,700,000 ---

10200-14400 11,100,000

1600-5900 14,800,000

---

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1803


Depth, ft: ---


After break

Project:


Summary of Testing





East Aurora, NY 14052(716)655.4933


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-629

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.086.564.850.643.433.728.417.711.2

8.47.26.45.95.5

26.9866 24.8328 17.450912.3860 5.2260 1.47500.6624 26.34 2.36


8/28/18 9/18/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 35.2 36.4 10.7 9.3 2.9 5.5

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-630

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.088.971.162.253.243.939.229.423.320.218.817.617.016.5

25.9577 23.8183 11.69308.5263 2.1312


8/28/18 9/21/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 28.9 31.9 9.8 9.2 3.7 16.5

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00


3rd Rock, LLC

East Aurora, NY


PL= LL= PI=


D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

ID#18-631

1.5"1

.75.5

.375.25#4#10#20#40#60

#100#140#200

100.093.081.075.172.168.665.056.950.446.343.440.738.837.1

23.5801 21.0921 2.93930.8003


8/28/18 9/21/18

JJZ

JMA

LM


4H18

18-001



Classification

Coefficients


Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 19.0 16.0 8.1 10.6 9.2 37.1

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1804


Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:









See photographs


0.16

4900-8500 6,490,000 0.33

8500-12100 4,850,000

1300-4900 5,220,000

---

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1804


Depth, ft: ---


After break




GTX #: 308761


Tested By: trm

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1804


Depth, ft: ---


Sample Description:









The axial and lateral strain gauges did not pick up any deformation within the first stress range. Young's Modulus and

Poissons Ratio within the first stress range could not be determined.

See photographs


---

2300-3900 4,890,000 0.24

3900-5500 4,430,000

600-2300 ---

0.35

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Vert

ical S

tress (

psi)

MicroStrain

Stress vs. Strain





GTX #: 308761


Tested By: crs

Checked By: jsc

Boring ID: DNW-1804


Depth, ft: ---


After break

Project: New York State Thruway Project No: 18-001Project: I-87 Catskill Creek Bridge, SE Approach Stabil.Client: Earth Dimensions, Inc. Date: 9/12/18

NaturalBorehole No. Sample Nos. Lab ID No. Water Content, %DNW-1801 S-1 18-597 6.7

S-2 18-597 3.5S-3 18-597 2.1S-4 18-597 3.6S-5 18-597 5.1S-6 18-597 2.1S-7 18-597 4.1S-8 18-597 5.0S-9 18-597 18.3

S-10 18-597 7.4DNW-1802 S-1 18-598 2.6

S-2 18-598 2.4S-3 18-598 2.3S-4 18-598 3.7S-5 18-598 5.3S-6 18-598 3.5S-7 18-598 2.4S-8 18-598 4.0S-9 18-598 5.7

S-10 18-598 15.9DNW-1803 S-1 18-599 3.2

S-2 18-599 6.4S-3 18-599 3.0S-4 18-599 2.9S-5 18-599 6.8S-6 18-599 3.1S-7 18-599 2.0S-8 18-599 3.7S-9 18-599 4.7

S-10 18-599 9.4S-11 18-599 13.9

DNW-1804 S-1 18-600 5.4S-2 18-600 3.0S-3 18-600 3.3S-4 18-600 3.1S-5 18-600 4.4S-6 18-600 3.7S-7 18-600 3.3S-8 18-600 3.4S-9 18-600 3.0

S-10 18-600 7.3S-11 18-600 24.0S-12 18-600 12.9

Water Content Test Results by ASTM D2216


East Aurora, NY 14052(716)655-4933

(716)655-8638 fax

APPENDIX D CALCULATIONS

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:

Project No.: Checked by:

Subject: Reviewed by:

Project Short Title:

Boring Layer Depth N Value

1.1' - 3.0' 27

3.0' - 5.0' 35

8.0' - 10.0' 16

13.0' - 15.0' 35

18.0' - 20.0' 48

23.0' - 25.0' 23

28.0' - 30.0' 87

33.0' - 35.0' 56

38.0' - 40.0' 40

43.0' - 45.0' 69

1.3' - 2.8' 45

3.0' - 5.0' 36

8.0' - 10.0' 78

13.0' - 15.0' 45

18.0' - 20.0' 23

23.0' - 25.0' 17

28.0' - 30.0' 40

33.0' - 35.0' 17

38.0' - 40.0' 21

Glacial Till 43.0' - 45.0' 16

1.0' - 3.0' 22

3.0' - 5.0' 76

8.0' - 10.0' 54

13.0' - 15.0' 17

18.0' - 20.0' 64

23.0' - 25.0' 22

28.0' - 30.0' 35

33.0' - 35.0' 27

38.0' - 40.0' 89

43.0' - 45.0' 76

48.0' - 50.0' 63

Rockfill

Glacial Till

DNW-2Rockfill

DNW-3

Rockfill

Glacial Till

10/25/2018 KAR

18104049 CJS

Seismic Site Class MCM


1.0 Purpose

Determine the seismic site class at the Catskill Creek Bridge in Greene County, NY.

2.0 Method

Follow the procedure outlined in AASHTO Table C3.10.3.1-1

3.0 References

1) AASHTO. (2017). "LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", Eighth Edition. Pages 3-94 to 3-96.

2) Borehole logs from Golder field explorations completed August 13-21, 2018, Report Appendix A.

4.0 Calculation

Determine the average N value for each of the layer of the soil profile.

DNW-1

C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Seismic Site Class\Catskill_SeismicSiteClass_withrefusal.xlsxGolder Associates Page 1 of 2

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




10/25/2018 KAR

18104049 CJS

Seismic Site Class MCM


1.0' - 3.0' 59

3.0' - 5.0' 33

8.0' - 10.0' 14

13.0' - 15.0' 12

18.0' - 20.0' 58

23.0' - 25.0' 27

28.0' - 30.0' 58

33.0' - 35.0' 83

38.0' - 40.0' 56

43.0' - 45.0' 69

48.0' - 50.0' 52

53.0' - 55.0' 62

Design Thickness

(feet)

51.0

5.0

d Fill = 51.2 N Fill = 42

d Till = 5.6 N Till = 54

d Rock = 43.2 N Rock = 100 *

57

Conclusion:

Average N Value

DNW-4

Rockfill

Glacial Till

Layer

Average N Values By Layer

Rockfill

Glacial Till

● The seismic site class is C because > 50 blows/ft. (Classification based on definitions from Table C3.10.3.1-1.)

*Note: Where refusal is met for a rock layer, N i should be taken as 100 blows/ft.

Determine the average N for the top 100 ft using the following calculation:

N i = Standard Penetration Test blow count of a layer (not exceeding 100 blows/ft in the above expression)

42

54

C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Seismic Site Class\Catskill_SeismicSiteClass_withrefusal.xlsxGolder Associates Page 2 of 2

10/26/2018Subject: H-Pile DesignProject Name: Catskill Creek BridgeReference: 18104049

Made By: CJS / KAR Checked By: CJS Reviewed By: CCB

Page 1 of 2

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the geotechnical capacity for selected pile sizes at the proposed retaining wall.

REFERENCES: 1. Geotechnical Design Procedure GDP-11 Revision #4, New York State Department of Transportation, August 2015

2. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Eighth Edition, 20173. Principles of Foundation Engineering, Seventh Edition, Braja Das, 20114. Laboratory test results for rock core sampled at project site: Compressive

Strength and Elastic Moduli of Rock, GeoTesting Express, September 20185. Shoring Suite analysis included in Appendix D.

APPROACH: Check pile tip resistance on rock to estimate pile capacity and factor of safety.

CALCULATION:

Step 1: Design Criteria (based on Shoring Suite analysis, Reference 5):

Vertical Anchor Load from Anchor Testing: ≔ALtest 134

Design Vertical Anchor Load: ≔ALdesign 90

Step 2: Select Preliminary Pile Sections (based on Shoring Suite analysis, Reference 5):

Select 2 Piles:HP 14x102HP 14x117

≔Ag30.034.4

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

2

Step 3: Using the Goodman method (Reference 3), calculate geotechnical pile tip resistance for the limestone bedrock at the site:

≔ϕ 34 For Limestone (34 - 40 degrees), LRFD Table C10.4.6.4-1

≔qulab 14 Determined by laboratory testing, Reference 4

≔qudesign ――qulab

5Reference 3, Equation 11.65

≔Nϕ =tan⎛⎜⎝

+°45 ―ϕ

2

⎞⎟⎠

2

3.537 Reference 3, Equation 11.64

≔qp =⋅qudesign⎛⎝ +Nϕ 1⎞⎠ 12.7 Reference 3, Equation 11.64

P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\600 Calculations\Pile Structural Capacity Calculation - updated for Catskill v3.mcdx

10/26/2018Subject: H-Pile DesignProject Name: Catskill Creek BridgeReference: 18104049

Made By: CJS / KAR Checked By: CJS Reviewed By: CCB

Page 2 of 2

Step 4: Calculate the pile tip bearing capacity and factor of safety:

≔Qp =⋅qp Ag381.1437

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

HP 14x102HP 14x117

Reference 3, Equation 11.66

≔FStest =――Qp

ALtest

2.843.26

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

HP 14x102HP 14x117


≔FSdesign =―――Qp

ALdesign

4.234.86

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

HP 14x102HP 14x117


CONCLUSION

The HP section piles (HP 14x102 and HP 14x117) were analyzed for bearing capacity on bedrock. The factor of safety during anchor testing is 2.84 and 3.26 for HP 14x102 and HP 14x117 piles, respectively. The factor of safety for the design case is 4.23 and 4.86 for HP 14x102 and HP 14x117 piles, respectively.

P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\600 Calculations\Pile Structural Capacity Calculation - updated for Catskill v3.mcdx

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




1) Earth pressure diagrams

2) Software output files

3) Groundwater conditions are as observed during the 2018 field program. Analysis of elevated water levels was outside

of our scope and not considered. Assume lagging/wall facing is able to freely drain (i.e. no unbalanced water force).

1.0 OBJECTIVE

3.0 REFERENCES

4.0 ATTACHMENTS

Design a soldier pile and lagging wall with grouted tie-backs to replace the existing wall. Evaluate permanent, temporary

construction and seismic conditions. Evaluate construction condition on the existing wall.

1. Follow NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Proceedure 11 (GDP-11) for fexible wall design. Use Shoring Suite 8.17a to

evaluate the soil/structure interaction and select/size the wall system.

7) New York State Department of Transportation (2012). “Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 17 – Abutments,

Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes,” DRAFT, pp.17-32.

8) New York State Department of Transportation (2015). "Geotechnical Design Procedure for Flexible Wall Systems,

(GDP-11)," Rev. 4.9) Sabatini, P.J., Pass, R.C., and Bachus R.C. (1999). "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 - Ground Anchors and

Anchored Systems," Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. pp 118

4) New York State Thruway Authority design drawing package titled “Bridge Rehabilitation, Milepost 113.22+/-,” drawing

numbers 31 & 42, dated December 1991.

5) Post-Tensioning Institue, (2014). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors – PTI DC35.1-14,” 5th

edition, United States of America.

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS

10) Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Ed. (2017), “Section 3.11.6.2 – Point, Line,

and Strip Loads (ES): Walls Restrained from Movement,” American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.

CJS

Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis

18104049

1/25/2019

6) USGS Seismic Design Maps software, published March 19, 2018, accessed on September 17, 2018,

[https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php?]

2.0 METHOD

JDL

Catskill Retaining Wall Replacement

CCB

1) Golder Associates boring logs, Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019) Appendix A.

2) Golder Associates design figures included in the Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019).

3) CivilTech Software, (2016). “Shoring Suite,” version 8.17a.

4) Assume soldier piles below grade consist of only the steel section (i.e. piles are not encased in concrete shafts).

1) The load applied by the road and traffic, for existing and final design conditions, is modeled at 250 psf. The construction

cases were analyzed for global stability assuming a uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf. The This 400 psf

surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment distributed over roughly 20 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs

to design crane mats.

2) Subsurface layers are assumed to exhibit fully drained behavior (c = 0).

5) The proposed soldier piles will be driven into place and will be constructed of 50 ksi steel, assuming Fb/Fy = 0.55 for

calculating the allowable bending moment and selecting an acceptable section modulus. A Fb/Fy = 0.9 (i.e. FS=1.1) was

assumed for the seismic design check. The existing soldier piles are assumed to be HP14x89 sections constructed of

36ksi steel (A Fb/Fy = 0.56 was considered acceptable for this analysis). Assume modulus of elasticity of 29,000ksi.

C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\Calculation Package\190125 Rev 3 Shoring Suite Calculation Package.xlsx1

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

Earth Pressures:

where:

γ' =H =k a =

φ'f = 37

where:

φ'f =

β =

δ =i =

kh = 0.102gkv = 0

7) The horizontal peak ground acceleration coefficient (PGA), the 0.2-second spectral response acceleration (Ss) and 1-

second spectral response acceleration (S1) can be determined using online USGS mapping software. The Site Class

classification of “C” and site location can be entered into the software which returns the PGA (PGA = 0.057 g), the spectral

response accelerations (Ss = 0.128 g and S1 = 0.038 g), effective peak ground acceleration coefficient (As = 0.068 g),

and the corresponding site coefficients, Fpga, of 1.2, Fa, of 1.2 and Fv, of 1.7. For seismic earth pressure calculations,

NYSDOT recommends using kh equal to 1.5 x As (kh = 0.102 g) and kv equal to zero for walls not free to move during

seismic loading and kh equal to 0.5 x As (kh = 0.034 g) and kv equal to zero for walls free to move during seismic loading.

The new wall will have some flexibility and will be free to deflect during a seismic event, however the tieback anchors will

provide some horizontal restraint. Therefore Golder recommends using the conservative higher kh value for design.

6.0 INPUT PARAMETERS

active earth pressure coefficient

deg, effective friction angle of soil layer

Determine the active earth pressure acting against the wall. Follow the design guidance in GDP-11 assuming Rankine

earth pressure.

effective unit weight of soil (pcf)

soil layer thickness (ft)

(horizontal earthquake acceleration component)

(vertical earthquake acceleration component)

(for static analysis)

(for pseudo-static analysis)

effective friction angle of soil layer (deg)

wall inclination (deg, assumed to equal zero for this analysis)

wall friction (deg, assumed to equal zero for this analysis)

backfill slope angle (deg, assumed to equal zero for this analysis)

(for static analysis)

6) Tie-back anchors will be installed at 45deg from horizontal and extended into competent soft limestone bedrock inside

a minimum 7-inch diameter drill hole. For design, PTI recommends applying a factor of safety of 2.0 to the ultimate bond

strength of 150 psi for soft limestone and grout. Accordingly, our analysis assumed a design bond strength of 75 psi

(10.8 ksf).

(for pseudo-static analysis)

𝑘𝑎 =1 − sinϕ𝑓

′

1 + sinϕ𝑓′

𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾 ′𝐻𝑘𝑎𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾 ′𝐻𝑘𝑎𝑒


CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

where:

q =

Determine the surcharge pressure acting against the proposed wall. Follow the design guidance in GDP-11 assuming

Rankine earth pressure.

uniform surcharge load (psf)

The existing wall wall surcharges were applied according to the theory below (from Ref. 10):

𝑝𝑞 = 𝑞𝑘𝑎


CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

where:

γ' =H =k p =

where:

β =φ'f = 37

FS =

k a = 0.25

k ae = 0.31

k p = 1.31

k p = 1.78

k p = 1.68

The earth pressure coefficients used in design were as follow:

deg, effective friction angle of soil layer

effective unit weight of soil (pcf)

soil layer thickness (ft)

passive earth pressure coefficient

1.5 for permanent walls (per GDP-11). 1.1 is recommended for pseudo-

static external stability analyses (Ref 9).

slope angle (deg)

Determine the passive pressure coefficient acting against the wall. Follow the design guidance in GDP-11 assuming

Rankine earth pressure.

(passive coefficient for non-seismic conditions)

(active coefficient for non-seismic conditions)

(active coefficient for seismic only)

Earth pressure diagrams for each design case are provided in Attachment 1.

(passive coefficient for seismic only)

(passive coefficient for existing wall under non-

seismic conditions, assuming 25degree slope in

front of wall)

𝑝𝑝 = 𝛾 ′𝐻𝑘𝑝


CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

Shoring Suite Analysis:

The earth pressure envelopes from Reference 7, coupled with the design assumptions described above, were used to

analyze the five following wall cases:

Case 1: Long-Term Static Condition – This case considered a full-height final condition (24.4 ft wall) that included a

surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the top of the wall, all anchors installed and tensioned, and the slope at the base of

the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope. Earth pressures are applied as shown in Attachment 1.

Case 2: Long-Term Seismic Condition – This case is the same as Case 1, but applies seismic earth pressures as as

shown in Attachment 1.

Case 3: Partial-Height Temporary Condition – This case assumes the front of the wall would be excavated to 10 ft bgs

and timber lagging would be installed in preparation for the anchor installation at 8 ft. As described above in Section 5.1 a

uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf was applied at the top of the wall. For the purposes of this analysis, the

slope in front of the wall is assumed to fail to 30 degrees measured from horizontal at the toe of slope at the river (no

passive resistance provided by the soil above teh 30 degree surface).

Case 4: Long Term Static Condition (End Pile South End of Wall) - The ground surface slopes upwards at the southern

end of the wall. This case considered a 10ft tall wall design condition, included a surcharge load of 250 psf applied at the

top of the wall, and the slope at the base of the wall extending 30 degrees from the toe of slope. This wall section

assumes 4ft pile spacing to account for the orientation of the end pile. Earth pressures are applied as shown in

Attachment 1.

Case 5: Temporary Construction Condition. This assumes a 5ft excavation behind the existing wall, in which the

installation equipment will sit, during installation of the proposed soldier piles. A construction surcharge of 400psf was

applied within the 5ft excavation from 7 to 27ft behind the existing wall. The 250psf traffic surcharge was applied at the

existing roadway elevation assuming two lanes of traffic are maintained through a lane shift. The slope below the existing

wall was assumed to be 25 degrees.


CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

The recommended design for the tieback wall includes a total of 12 HP 14x102* soldier piles, spaced at 8 ft on-center. In

addition, the Shoring Suite analysis results in a minimum pile embedment depth of approximately 11.6 ft below the bottom

of the wall. Golder recommends driving the piles to refusal on bedrock to satisfy axial pile capacity requirements (i.e.

vertical anchor load components, dead weight of the wall, etc.). This results in estimated pile lengths ranging from

approximately 45 to 65 ft.

The design analysis includes one row of tieback anchors, installed at an inclination of 45 degrees, spaced at 8 ft on

center, that tie-in to each pile. The Shoring Suite analyses requires an anchor capacity of 84.3 kips to satisfy static wall

equilibrium under these conditions. GDP-11 indicates that a factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the anchor load

resulting in a design anchor load of 126.5 kips with horizontal and vertical components of 89.4 kips. The anchors should

be tested to 1.5 times the design load, resulting in temporary design loads during construction of 189.75 kips with

horizontal and vertical components of 134.1 kips.

A 400psf construction surcharge applied 7 to 27ft behind the existing wall can be applied during construction assuming 5ft

of soil is removed from behind the wall. Based on GDP-11 recommendations, the temporary timber lagging used during

construction whould be 3inches thick assuming: competent sands/gravels, 8ft pile spacing and wall height <25ft. The

timber lagging is assumed to be temporary and should be considered ineffective in carrying earth pressure loadings for

long-term permanent conditions. A maximum apparent earth pressure of 820 psf at the base of the exposed wall face can

be used in lagging design. This earth pressure does not include an earth pressure reduction for soil arching that may be

present if strain compatibility is considered.

*HP 14x120 is the minimum required pile size prior to any reduction in section for corrosion loss or anchor sleeve placment.

7.0 Conclusion


CStuart

Text Box

550psf

CStuart

Line

CStuart

Polygon

CStuart

Polygon

CStuart

Line

CStuart

Text Box

550psf

CStuart

Text Box

823psf

CStuart

Text Box

1415psf

MCM

- Timber lagging is in place

MCM

- Timber lagging is in place.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 500 1000 1500

Dep

th B

elo

w T

op

of

Wal

lEarth Pressure (psf)

Case 5: Earth Pressure on Existing Wall

Active Earth Pressures

Surcharge Pressures - 400psf Load

Total Pressure

Surcharge Pressures - 250psf Load

Permanent Wall - Design Condition8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing

<ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltech.com

1

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

400 1 ksf

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/2/2018

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Permanent Wall.sh8

Wall Height=24.4 Pile Diameter=1.2 Pile Spacing=8.0 Wall Type: 3. Soldier Pile, Driving

PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=11.64 Min. Pile Length=36.04

MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=284.79 per Pile Spacing=8.0 at Depth=20.01

PILE SELECTION:

Request Min. Section Modulus = 124.3 in3/pile=2036.48 cm3/pile, Fy= 50 ksi = 345 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.55

HP14X102 has Section Modulus = 150.0 in3/pile=2458.05 cm3/pile. It is greater than Min. Requirements!

Top Deflection = -0.98(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0

BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, Deadman, Sheet Pile as Anchor

No. & Type Depth Angle Space Total F. Horiz. F. Vert. F. L_free Fixed Length

1. Tieback 8.0 45.0 8.0 84.3 59.6 59.6 14.0 4.3

UNITS: Width,Diameter,Spacing,Length,Depth,and Height - ft; Force - kip; Bond Strength and Pressure - ksf

DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE):

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

0 0.062 43 1.398 0.031070

PASSIVE PRESSURES:

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

24.4 0 43 3.036 0.1632

ACTIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 0.00 8.00

2 24.40 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 24.40 3.69

UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft

Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in

Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Design Condition8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Permanent Wall.sh8

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343


PRESSURE, SHEAR, MOMENT, AND DEFLECTION DIAGRAMSBased on pile spacing: 8.0 foot or meter

User Input Pile, hp14x102: E (ksi)=29000.0, I (in4)/pile=1050.0

84.3 kip

0 1 ksf

Net Pressure Diagram

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Depth(ft) Max. Shear=47.65 kip

47.65 kip 0

Shear Diagram

Max. Moment=284.79 kip-ft

284.79 kip-ft 0

Moment Diagram

Top Deflection=-0.98(in)Max Deflection=1.04(in)

1.042(in) 0

Deflection Diagram

Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Seismic Condition8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing


1

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 0 1 ksf

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/25/2018

File: C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite




PILE SELECTION:



Top Deflection = -0.23(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0

BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, Deadman, Sheet Pile as Anchor

No. & Type Depth Angle Space Total F. Horiz. F. Vert. F. L_free Fixed Length

1. Tieback 8.0 45.0 8.0 123.8 87.5 87.5 14.0 6.3

UNITS: Width,Diameter,Spacing,Length,Depth,and Height - ft; Force - kip; Bond Strength and Pressure - ksf


Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

0 0.55 24.4 0.55 0.000000

24.4 .823 43 1.415 0.031828

PASSIVE PRESSURES:

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

24.4 0 43 4.139 0.2225

ACTIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 0.00 8.00

2 24.40 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 24.40 3.69



Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Seismic Condition8ft Pile Spacing, 8ft Anchor Spacing

le: C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite\seismic case partialRectangular dist.sh8

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343




123.8 kip

0 1 ksf


Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


52.20 kip 0

Shear Diagram


170.10 kip-ft 0

Moment Diagram

Top Deflection=-0.23(in)Max Deflection=0.48(in)

0.482(in) 0

Deflection Diagram

Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Construction Conditions8ft Pile Spacing, Excavation to 10ft for Anchor In


Force EquilibriumMoment Equilibrium

Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

350 1 ksf

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/2/2018

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Construction Case No Anchor.sh8




PILE SELECTION:



Top Deflection = 0.91(in) based on E (ksi)=29000.00 and I (in4)/pile=1050.0


Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

0 .1 43 1.436 0.031070

PASSIVE PRESSURES:

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

10 0 43 5.385 0.1632

ACTIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 0.00 8.00

2 10.00 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 10.00 3.69



Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Construction Conditions8ft Pile Spacing, Excavation to 10ft for Anchor In

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\Construction Case No Anchor.sh8

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343





0 1 ksf


Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


58.87 kip 0

Shear Diagram


217.70 kip-ft 0

Moment Diagram

Top Deflection=0.91(in)Max Deflection=0.91(in)

0.910(in) 0

Deflection Diagram

Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Last Pile at West End of WallReduce to 4ft Pile Spacing to Simulate End Pile



Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 ksf

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 10/5/2018

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\End pile 4ft spacing.sh8




PILE SELECTION:





Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

0 0.062 43 1.398 0.031070

PASSIVE PRESSURES:

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

10 0 43 5.385 0.1632

ACTIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 0.00 4.00

2 10.00 1.23

PASSIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 10.00 3.69



Attachment 2

Permanent Wall - Last Pile at West End of WallReduce to 4ft Pile Spacing to Simulate End Pile

File: P:\Projects\2018\18104049 Bridge over Catskill Creek - C-M\ShoringSuite Temp\End pile 4ft spacing.sh8

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343





0 1 ksf


Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


28.16 kip 0

Shear Diagram


73.50 kip-ft 0

Moment Diagram

Top Deflection=0.23(in)Max Deflection=0.23(in)

0.232(in) 0

Deflection Diagram

Attachment 2

15ft Existing Wall - Construction Conditions6ft Pile Spacing 5ft Excavation Behind Wall



Depth(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 ksf

Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 1/25/2019

File: C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Shoring Suite

Wall Height=15.0 Pile Diameter=2.0 Pile Spacing=6.0 Wall Type: 2. Soldier Pile, Drilled


User inputted Embedment=20.00, Pile Length=35.00


SYSTEM FACTOR OF SAFETY (Approximate)=1.02

The request embedment is 19.5, the user input fixed embedment = 20.

PILE SELECTION:





Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

0 0 5 0.0264 0.005280

5 0.0264 10 .3903 0.072780

10 .3903 15 .5647 0.034880

15 .5647 20 .6851 0.024080

20 .6851 25 .8019 0.023360

25 .8019 30 .9248 0.024580

30 .9248 35 1.0545 0.025940

PASSIVE PRESSURES:

Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope

15 0 43 5.907 0.2110

ACTIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 0.00 6.00

2 15.00 2.00

Attachment 2

PASSIVE SPACING:

No. Z depth Spacing

1 15.00 4.00



CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




(Reference 1, Eq. 7.61)Where:

ϕ = 37 deg, soil friction angle

kp = 4.0

Where:γʹ = 125 pcf, unit weight of soilH = 10 ft, temporary height of wall during anchor installation

Pp = 25142 lbs/ft

Check factor of safety against Test Load (PTL)

Where:L = 8 ft, pile spacing

PTL = 135,000 lbs, Horizontal Component of Anchor Test Load

FS = 1.49

Check factor of safety against Test Load (PDL)

Where:L = 8 ft, pile spacing

PDL = 90,000 lbs, Horizontal Component of Anchor Test Load

FS = 2.23

The factor of safety against passive failure at the anchor test load is 1.49.The factor of safety against passive failure at the anchor design load is 2.23.

6.0 Conclusions

(Reference 1, Eq. 7.64)

1) Das, Braja, (2011). "Principles of Foundation Engineering," 7th ed.

4.0 Assumptions

1) The wall system transfers the anchor load uniformly over the back of the exposed wall (i.e. temporary lagging). During anchor installation, the anchor

load is distributed over 8ft x 10ft (i.e. 8ft pile spacing and 10 ft wall height at testing).

5.0 Calculations

2) Horizontal anchor load transferred to the pile is 135 kips (Test Load) and 90 kips (Design Load).


1.0 Purpose

Check that the force generated during anchor testing does not exceed the passive soil resistance of the wall system.

2.0 Method

Calculate passive pressure using Rankine earth pressure theory.

3.0 References

10/31/2018 CJS

18104049 MCM

Passive Soil Check During Anchor Installation CCB

APPENDIX D

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




5) Pile sizing, spacing and orientation were selected as described in Appendix D of the Geotechnical Design Report. The retained portion of the anchored

wall is modeled with the retained earth pressure applied to the face of the wall (as the Soil/Pile Interaction Calculation in Reference 5 shows the proposed

wall system satisfies equilibrium for the applied design loads. The earth pressure diagrams are included as part of Reference 5). The purpose of this is to

help model the stiffness of the piles and the anchored wall system instead of using a discrete anchor point load. The piles are modeled as active supports

with a user defined shear strength value. LPile was used to check the amount of mobilized shear resistance on the piles for a specified amount of soil

movement past the pile. We assumed an allowable soil movement of up to 1.75 inches for the purpose of this analysis. Pile shear strength values used in

the analysis are shown on the output Figure D-2 through D-6. The following soil models were used in the analysis:

CJS

Global Stability Analysis

18104049

1/25/2019

1) Slide Output Figures

1.0 Purpose

Calculate global factor of safety for the proposed retaining wall replacement. Analyze existing, construction, and final design conditions under static and

seismic conditions.

2.0 Method

Use Slide slope stability analysis software to analyze global stability.

3.0 References

1) Golder Associates boring logs, Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019) Appendix A.

5) Golder Associates calculation titled, "Soil/Structure Interaction Analysis," dated 1/25/2019.

JDL

2) Subsurface layers are assumed to exhibit fully drained behavior (c' = 0).

5.0 Assumptions

6) Rocscience, Inc. 2018. “RSPile”, Version 2018 2.011, build date October 15, 2018, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.


CCB

3) Rocscience, Inc. 2018. “SLIDE – 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis”, Version 2018 8.018, build date September 28, 2018, Toronto, Ontario,

Canada.

2) Golder Associates design figures included in the Geotechnical Design Report (January 2019).

4.0 Attachments

4) New York State Thruway Authority design drawing package titled “Bridge Rehabilitation, Milepost 113.22+/-,” drawing numbers 31 & 42, dated

December 1991.

3) Facing of the retaining wall is assumed to be infinite strength (i.e. structural failure of the lagging is not allowed). The concrete wall facing is modeled

with a unit weight of 0.1pcf, as the facing will be supported by the piles and does not add driving forces to the slide.

4) Groundwater conditions are as observed during the 2018 field program. Analysis of elevated water levels was outside of our scope and not considered.

1) The load applied by the road and traffic, for existing and final design conditions, is modeled at 250 psf. The construction cases were analyzed for global

stability assuming a uniform construction surcharge load of 400 psf above the wall. This 400 psf surcharge is based on 150,000 lbs of equipment

distributed over roughly 20 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs to design crane mats. The construction cases were also analyzed for global

stability assuming a uniform construction surcharge load of 350 psf between the walls. This 350 psf surcharge is based on 42,000 lbs of equipment

distributed over roughly 6 ft x 20 ft area, assuming the contractor needs to design crane mats.

C:\Users\CStuart\Golder Associates\18104049, Creighton Catskill Creek Bridge NY - Technical Work (1)\Stablility Analyses\Calculation Package\19.01.25 Catskill_Final Slide package v3.xlsx1

APPENDIX D

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

Use the soil layer parameters summarized in Figure D-1 to analyze the following scenarios:

7) Use Bishop Method for circular failures in the analyses discussed in this calculation.

6) The NYSTA indicated that stabilization of the existing slope would not be considered, but indicated that a FS > 1.3 was required for final design

conditions. We assumed a FS > 1.1. was required for construction conditions and FS > 1.0 was required for the seismic condition.

8) The seismic analysis in slide is performed by adding an the seismic force as a horizontal loading. The NYSDOT recommends using a horizontal pseudo-

static coefficient, kh, equal to half of As (kh = 0.034 g) and a vertical pseudo-static coefficient, kv, equal to zero for pseudo-static slope stability analyses.

1. Existing conditions

2. Temporary construction condition prior to installation of the anchors (i.e., construction equipment on top of the wall and a bench

in front at 10 ft from top of wall)

3. Temporary construction condition at maximum excavation. For this construction contract, the new wall will typically have a 15 ft

exposed face with 4 ft of lagging installed below finished grade (i.e. maximum excavation at 19ft bgs).

4. Final design conditions (see Figure 6 of the Geotechnical Design Report @ Design Grade)

5. Final design seismic conditions (see Figure 6 of the Geotechnical Design Report @ Design Grade)

6. Temporary construction condition to install piles for the new wall. This assumes a 5ft excavation behind the existing wall in

which the installation equipment will sit.

- API Sand (axial model, medium dense sand):

- Reese Sand (lateral model, medium consistency)

*Soil property tables shown above are taken from the internal RSPile help documentation (Reference 6).

Determine input parameters to build the soil model in Slide. Use field N values and local engineering experience to develop these parameters. The field N

values are shown on the boring logs (Reference 2). The material parameters selected for use in the Slide models are shown in Figure D-1.

6.0 Calculation


APPENDIX D

CALCULATIONS

Date: Made by:




CJS


18104049

1/25/2019

JDL


CCB

CASE 1:

Existing ConditionsD-2 0.97

D-3.1 1.20

D-3.2 1.21

D-4.1 1.33

D-4.2 1.24

CASE 4:

Permanent Design

Condition

D-5 1.30

CASE 5:

Permanent Design

Seismic Condition

D-6 1.23

CASE 6:

Construction:

Surcharge Application

Behind Existing Wall

D-7 1.18

Conclusion:

● CASE 6: An allowable surcharge of 400psf, distributed over a 20ft width and set 7ft from behind the existing wall, can be assumed during construction

provided 5ft of material is excavated from behind the existing wall prior to surcharge placement. This case maintain 250psf traffic surcharge on the

roadway assuming a lane shift into the center median.

● CASE 5: This shows the wall is stable at the final design case, as described above, during a seismic loading event (i.e. kh = 0.034 g, kv=0).

● CASE 1: The global stability of the existing conditions confirms that the current slope conditions are not stable.

● CASE 2: An allowable surcharge of 400psf above the new wall and 350psf between the existing wall and the new wall was determined to be acceptable

once temporary lagging has been installed to a depth of 10 feet. Anchors must be installed prior to further excavation in front of the wall.

● CASE 3: Once the anchors have been installed, excavation to a depth of 19 feet for additional lagging installation was determined to be stable with both

a surcharge loading of 400psf above the wall and 350psf below the wall over a 6ft width.

● CASE 4: This shows the wall is stable at the final design case assuming the slope fails (i.e. passive soil loss) in front of the wall leaving an exposed wall

height of 24.4ft. Traffic is maintained on the roadway for this condition.

Global Factor

of Safety

Depth to Failure Surface

(ft, below top of wall)

Existing slope configuration with 250psf traffic

surcharge loading

Same analysis as above, but includes 350psf

equipment surcharge for equipment working

in front of the wall

- -

Comments

16.8

Excavate to a depth of 5ft behind the existing

wall and apply 400psf construction surcharge.

Maintain 250psf traffic surcharge on roadway

assuming a lane shift.

Run Description

7.0 Results & Conclusions

Table 7.1: Proposed Conditions Slope Stability Results

Figure Nos.

Failure under the proposed wall with 400psf

construction loads above wall. Excavation to

19ft to install lagging. Pile shear forces are

modeled assuming 1-inch of soil movement

past the piles.

The proposed retaining wall system maintains acceptable factors of saftey through the construction scenarios and the design conditions as described

below:

CASE 2:

Construction:

Excavation to 10 ft, No

Anchors Installed

Failure under the proposed wall with 400psf

construction loads above wall. Excavation to

10ft to install anchors at 8ft. Pile shear forces

are modeled assuming 1-inch of soil

movement past the piles.

10.5

CASE 3:

Construction:

Excavation to 19 ft,

Anchors Installed

- -

Same analysis as above, but includes 350psf

equipment surcharge for equipment working

in front of the wall

34.5

10.5

20.0

34.0

Excavation to 24.4ft per the design condtions

with a 30deg slope below the wall. Pile shear

forces are modeled assuming 1.75-inch of soil

movement past the piles.

Same analysis as above, but with seismic

load applied to the system


Material Name Color Unit Weight(lbs/ 3) Strength Type Cohesion

(psf)Phi(deg)

Rock Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 37

Till 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 38

Concrete 0.1 Infinite strength

Bedrock 155 Infinite strength

Vegeta on 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 50 37

86

08

40

82

08

00

78

0

-280 -260 -240 -220 -200 -180 -160 -140 -120

Analysis Description Material Summary TableScale 1:197Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/25/2018

Project

Stabilize Approach to Thruway Bridge Over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159

SLIDEINTERPRET 8.018

JDL Figure D-1

* Facing of the retaining wall is assumed to be infinite strength (i.e. structural failure of the lagging is not allowed). The concretewall facing is modeled with a unit weight of 0.1pcf, as the facing will be supported by the piles and does not add driving forcesto the slide.

*

CCB

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

0.97

15.9

Existing Ground Surface

25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Analysis Description CASE 1 - Existing Conditions - Circular FailureScale 1:475Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/4/2018

Project



JDL Figure D-2CCB

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

400.00 lbs/ft2

Support Name Color Type Force Applica on Out‐Of‐PlaneSpacing ( )

FailureMode

Pile ShearStrength(lbs)

Force Direc on

Proposed PilesPile/Micro

PileAc ve (Method A) 8 Shear 15000 Perpendicular to pile

Exis ng PilesPile/Micro


Method Name Min FS

Bishop simplified 1.21


25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Analysis Description CASE 2 - Construction: Excavation to 10 ft, No Anchors Installed- No Surcharge Below Proposed Wall - Circular SearchScale 1:458Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/23/2018

Project



JDL Figure D-3.1CCB

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

400.00 lbs/ft2

350.00 lbs/ft2



FailureMode


Force Direc on

Proposed PilesPile/Micro




Method Name Min FS


25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Analysis Description CASE 2 - Construction: Excavation to 10 ft, No Anchors Installed- Includes Surcharge Below Proposed Wall - Circular SearchScale 1:441Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/23/2018

Project



JDLFigure D-3.2CCB

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2 400.00 lbs/ft2


FailureMode


Force Direc on

PilesPile/Micro


Method Name Min FS



25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Analysis Description CASE 3 - Construction: Excavation to 19 ft, Anchors Installed - No Surcharge Below Proposed WallScale 1:490Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/25/2018

Project

Stabilize SE Approach to Thruway Bridge over Catskill Creek - Milepost 113.22 - NYSTA PIN A72159


JDL Figure D-4.1

Tiebac

k Anc

hor

CCB

cstuart

Line

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2 400.00 lbs/ft2


FailureMode


Force Direc on

PilesPile/Micro


Method Name Min FS



25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Analysis Description

Scale 1:446Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJSDate 10/25/2018

Project



JDLFigure D-4.2

CASE 3 - Construction: Excavation to 19 ft, Anchors Installed - Includes Surcharge Below Proposed Wall

350.00 lbs/ft2

Tiebac

k Anc

hor

CCB

cstuart

Line

cstuart

Line

cstuart

Line

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

1.30

30°


FailureMode


Force Direc on

PilesPile/Micro



30

25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Analysis Description CASE 4 - Permanent Wall - Design Condition - Circular SearchScale 1:524Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/23/2018

Project



JDL Figure D-5

Tiebac

k Anc

hor

CCB

cstuart

Line

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

1.23

30°


FailureMode


Force Direc on

PilesPile/Micro



0.034

25

02

00

15

01

00

50

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Analysis Description CASE 5 - Permanent Wall - Design Seismic Condition - Circular SearchScale 1:500Reviewed by:Checked by:Drawn By CJS

Date 10/24/2018

Project



Figure D-6

Horizontal Seismic Loading Applied to the Model

JDL

Tiebac

k Anc

hor

CCB

cstuart

Line

1.1821.182

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2 400.00 lbs/ft2

1.1821.182

Method Name Min FS

Spencer 1.18


FailureMode


Force Direc on


PilePassive (Method B) 6 Shear 9982 Perpendicular to pile

20.0

7.0

20

01

50

10

05

0

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Analysis Description CASE 6 - Excavate to 5ft to Install Anchors

Figure D-7Scale 1:405Reviewed by:Checked by: JDLDrawn By CJS

Date 1/25/2019

Project



CCB

golder.com

geotechnical design report - bidnet

Documents